Galaxy clusters collide—dark matter still a mystery

March 26, 2015
Individual image of A370 with dark matter model overlaid. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Harvey (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland), R. Massey (Durham University, UK), the Hubble SM4 ERO Team and ST-ECF

When galaxy clusters collide, their dark matters pass through each other, with very little interaction. Deepening the mystery, a study by scientists at EPFL and the University of Edinburgh challenges the idea that dark matter is composed of particles.

Dark matter is one of science's great mysteries. It makes up an enormous amount matter in the universe, it is invisible, and it does not correspond to anything in the realm of our experience. Different theories compete for an explanation, but so far none of them has prevailed. In a collaborative study between École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) and the University of Edinburgh, scientists have studied how dark matter behaves when galaxy clusters collide with each other over billions of years. Published in Science, their findings challenge at least one major theory on dark matter.

Dark matter and galaxy clusters

Although it accounts for 90% of all matter in the universe and more than a quarter of its energy, we know very little about dark matter. One major idea among astronomers is that dark matter consists of a new subatomic particle that we haven't discovered yet. More exotic theories want dark matter to be a quantum defect from the birth of the universe, extra-dimensional mass, and even a modified form of gravity.

Galaxy cluster Abell 2744 with dark matter map. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Harvey (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland), R. Massey (Durham University, UK), ESO and D. Coe (STScI), J. Merten (Heidelberg/Bologna)

What we do know is that dark matter interacts with cosmic structures through gravity, shaping and molding them. For example, dark matter bends light that passes through it, distorting images of distant space objects. In addition, dark matter speeds up the motion of galaxies inside galaxy clusters, which are collections of hundreds of galaxies, containing literally astronomical amounts of stars, planets, and gases. Galaxy clusters are also 90% dark matter, which makes them ideal for studying it, especially when they collide into each other and force their respective dark matters to interact.

Peering into the dark

David Harvey at EPFL's Laboratory of Astrophysics studies galaxy cluster collisions to find clues about the nature of dark matter. Continuing his PhD work from the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh, he and his colleagues studied data from 72 galaxy cluster collisions. These cosmic crashes happen over the course of billions of years when galaxy clusters attract each other because of their gargantuan masses. When this happens, the dark matter in each galaxy cluster interacts with that of the other, offering a unique opportunity to study it.

Harvey's data came from the Chandra X-ray Space Observatory and the Hubble telescope, and included the famous Bullet Cluster collision, a collision of two galaxy clusters whose gas has been molded into the shape of a bullet. This particular collision is actually the best current evidence for the existence of dark matter.

Galaxy cluster MACS J0152.5-2852 with dark matter map. Credit: NASA, ESA, D. Harvey (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland) and R. Massey (Durham University, UK)

The researchers analyzed the collision data to measure the change in momentum of dark matter when two crashed into each other. Experiments on Earth, e.g. in the Large Hadron Collider, show us that when subatomic particles interact, they exchange momentum. Therefore, depending on what happened to the dark matter after the collision, the researchers could draw conclusions about its nature.

To test the theory that dark matter consists of particles, the study worked with two possible scenarios: Either the particles of the dark matter interacted frequently but exchanged little momentum, or they interacted rarely but exchanged a lot of momentum. In the first case, dark matter would slow down after the collision, because the frequent particle interactions would cause an additional "drag". In the second scenario, dark matter would tend to be scattered away and lost into space.

Surprisingly, the study discovered that dark matters in galaxy cluster collisions simply pass through each other. This implies that dark matter particles do not interact with themselves, which would have caused dark matter to slow down. Instead, it appears that while dark matter could interact "non-gravitationally" with visible matter, this is not the case when it interacts with itself.

More importantly, the study challenges the view that dark matter consists of proton-like particles - or perhaps any particles whatsoever. "We have now pushed the probability of two 'dark matter particles' interacting below the probability of two actual protons interacting, which means that is unlikely to consist of just 'dark-protons'," says David Harvey. "If it did, we would expect to see them 'bounce' off each other".

Explore further: How do we know dark matter exists?

More information: Harvey D, Massey R, Kitching T, Taylor A, Tittley E. The non-gravitational interactions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters. Science 27 March 2015. DOI: 10.1126/science.1261381

Related Stories

Dark matter guides growth of supermassive black holes

February 18, 2015

Every massive galaxy has a black hole at its center, and the heftier the galaxy, the bigger its black hole. But why are the two related? After all, the black hole is millions of times smaller and less massive than its home ...

Recommended for you

Recurring martian streaks: flowing sand, not water?

November 20, 2017

Dark features on Mars previously considered evidence for subsurface flowing of water are interpreted by new research as granular flows, where grains of sand and dust slip downhill to make dark streaks, rather than the ground ...

Image: Hubble's cosmic search for a missing arm

November 20, 2017

This new picture of the week, taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, shows the dwarf galaxy NGC 4625, located about 30 million light-years away in the constellation of Canes Venatici (The Hunting Dogs). The image, ...

122 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Benni
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 26, 2015
"This implies that dark matter particles do not interact with themselves, which would have caused dark matter to slow down. Instead, it appears that while dark matter could interact "non-gravitationally" with visible matter, this is not the case when it interacts with itself."

Above quoted from the article:

Clever stuff this DM, it has its' own version of gravity that is different from the version of gravity that holds us on planet Earth & in orbit about the Sun, creates gravitational lensing, keeps spiral galaxies from flying apart, but it is not attracted to itself.

Just what keeps this stuff together in such conglomerate chunks? We've been led to believe DM has a halo that is larger than the galaxies it holds together. How does DM gravity perform this neat trick? Maybe gravity has isotopes of gravitons? You know, like there are isotopes of various elements. And maybe these isotopes of gravitons have inherent gravitational field generating characteristics. :)

ralph638s
2 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
That quote seems to contradict what the rest of the article is saying. Shouldn't it be "gravitationally" rather than "non-gravitationally"?
Benni
2 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2015
Right off the top we should dispense with all the pseudo-science catcalls.........let's just call this DeliriousBen Science.
ralph638s
5 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2015
From the Daily Mail: Is dark matter a FLUID? Mystery 'particles' are mapped in galaxy clusters - but results suggest they may not be particles at all

http://www.dailym...all.html

Interestingly, their article includes the same "non-gravitationally" quote.
mscheue1
4 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
Normal atomic matter is much larger than the protons, neutrons, and electrons that compose it because (1) the electric fields of the interacting atoms determine the density of the material and (2) the size of the atoms are determined by the speed of the electrons in their orbitals and the uncertainty principle that sets the effective position of the electrons based on their momentum.

Dark matter, being electrically neutral, is orders of magnitude more dense than atomic matter so the chances of collisions between dark matter particles from two colliding galaxies is also much lower than collisions between atomic matter, like dust and stars.

It's not at all clear how the researchers determined the collisional cross sections. Did they assume the density of DM to be the same as atoms, as quarks confined by the strong force, or something completely different? Perhaps, the questions should be reversed and the data used to put a limiting range on the denisty of DM.
Benni
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2015
That quote seems to contradict what the rest of the article is saying. Shouldn't it be "gravitationally" rather than "non-gravitationally"?


.......the whole thing is funny farm science, it is so bad & so self contradictory by its' own phraseology that you can only laugh at it. The more those who want to be taken seriously about this DM stuff, the funnier they become within the contexts of their own words.

In order to pass this off to convince readers DM has some semblance of reality, they superimpose a bluish airbrushed halo over a real picture & declare they've just uncovered how a DM halo configures itself when galaxies collide.

Then they get really funny farm silly when they state they have figured out from their superimposed airbrushing that DM gravity fields have learned a neat trick, that DM gravity attracts only non-DM matter & ignores itself but manages to even screw up that up by misstating or misspelling the conclusion to their original premise.
Benni
2.7 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2015
Dark matter, being electrically neutral
How do you know this? Have you measured this property with a volt/ohm meter?

is orders of magnitude more dense than atomic matter
You know this because you've got a barrel full of this stuff sitting next to you for which you've measured this "density"?

so the chances of collisions between dark matter particles from two colliding galaxies is also much lower than collisions between atomic matter, like dust and stars.
No kidding, you've gone right out there & observed this firsthand?

It's not at all clear how the researchers determined the collisional cross sections
As if we had'nt noticed.

Perhaps, the questions should be reversed and the data used to put a limiting range on the denisty of DM.
Wait a minute, what about the oddball gravity stuff? Don't you wonder how that works? Or you think that's irrelevant or unimportant?
sandler
5 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2015
It's interesting that 99.9..9 percent of atom is empty space.. Also 99.9..9 of universe is empty space.. Out of 0.00..1 percent of actual material we have to deduct another another 90 percent for dark matter, which still leaves us with billions worth of stuff we could see and understand..
arom
Mar 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TabulaMentis
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2015
mscheue1

Dark matter, being electrically neutral, is orders of magnitude more dense than atomic matter so the chances of collisions between dark matter particles from two colliding galaxies is also much lower than collisions between atomic matter, like dust and stars.

Why do you say DM is more dense than atomic matter?
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2015
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

Dark matter has mass. Dark matter physically occupies three dimensional space. Dark matter is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter anchored to the Milky Way. The Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of spacetime.

What is referred to geometrically as the deformation of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the dark matter.

A moving particle has an associated dark matter displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels through a single slit and the associated wave in the dark matter passes through both.
Broken Mirror
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2015
Seeing as the dark matter fails to self interact, I think it is time to consider 3 dimensional time physics. The dark matter would be ordinary matter traveling in different directions in 3 D time. We can only see (interact non gravitaionally) with matter traveling in our own time direction. Everything else just intersects our time line for a moment, so no interaction results are visible, its gone. We merely see the flow of "dark" matter through our time line gravitationally, like water under a bridge. 3 inexplicable generations of particles, rather curious. With complex dimensions, why would time be different than space? People just can't get there mind around multi dimensional time, like the world is still flat for them. The Big Bang just got some stuff coherent in time that we can see. Causality of closed time loops is not an issue, the traveler is conditioned for the time they travel to by physics. You are a time traveler now, being made consistent with your future along the way.
Captain Stumpy
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2015
.......the whole thing is funny farm science, it is so bad & so self contradictory by its' own phraseology that you can only laugh at it. The more those who want to be taken seriously about this DM stuff, the funnier they become within the contexts of their own words
@benji
you are basing your ASSumption on the article, not the study
the study link is broken from the site, and unless your mad engineering skillz are so great that you managed to hack the real study, you are talking article vs evidence

until the link gets fixed, you don't know WHAT study the study says... or do you have a copy of the study at your house?
eric96
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2015
I'm not sure who is doing more drugs, the authors of the study or the writer. In any event, let me speak on the matter of galaxy collision.

Galaxies only merge if there momentum is low enough to cause the galaxies to collide back and forth like a pendulum until they are merged. This is a rare event; galaxies usually have a lot of momentum. How can dark matter at once hold the galaxy together and not reassure that galaxies merge? The explanation lies in galaxy formation. Dark matter and some form of matter appeared roughly at the same time moments after the big bang. However, there was a lot more dark matter. Both matter and dark matter accrue, however dark matter (being more of it) accrues faster and will act as the framework for the galaxy At this stage, matter is primitive enough in form that it is attracted to dark matter; so in essence you have cloud of matter within a bigger cloud of dark matter. Later matter loses all attraction with dark matter, but mass holds it all
eric96
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
The difference between dark matter and matter is that dark matter does not evolve and matter does. Matter evolved to be much more dense in form such that relatively speaking there is almost zero interaction between matter and dark matter. Dark matter remained primitive but has always found advantage in numbers. Dark matter is extremely weak, can combine with other dark matter if momentum between galaxies approaches zero. It does interact with other dark matter when the momentum is next to none, otherwise it doesn't interact with other dark matter or any matter.
eric96
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
So to answer the question, time is of the essence. There was time when dark matter and matter were attracted and formed galaxies. However, since that time matter evolved to be much more dense than dark matter such that the two don't interact with one another. Furthermore, dark matter has always been weak and for it to interact with other dark matter the moment between these dark matter must approach zero. The reasons galaxies pass thru one another is because momentum, not dark matter, is king.
TheOrphan
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
If we saw DM floating around in deep space outside of galaxy formations then the particle theory would hold true.

But from what I've read it's limited to Mass based structures.

Perhaps (I know I harp on about this one). DM is just a state changed space-time, a skin has formed because of the gravity masses in the galactic structures themselves ?

If this skin is the basis for all particle formations, and considering how persistent those particles are, maybe it's a one way state transition, and because of the scale and lowest possible energy state of this skin, interaction is non existent unless it's cold enough to make the skin "solid"
dogbert
3.3 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2015
Surprisingly, the study discovered that dark matters in galaxy cluster collisions simply pass through each other. This implies that dark matter particles do not interact with themselves, which would have caused dark matter to slow down. Instead, it appears that while dark matter could interact "non-gravitationally" with visible matter, this is not the case when it interacts with itself.


Isn't it funny that the substance we created to renormalize our models of gravity when our models failed to match our observations is now supposed to be immune to gravitational influence to itself?

I'd say "You can't make this stuff up!" except that is precisely what we have done repeatedly.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2015
The difference between dark matter and matter is that dark matter does not evolve and matter does. Matter evolved to be much more dense in form such that relatively speaking there is almost zero interaction between matter and dark matter. Dark matter remained primitive but has always found advantage in numbers. Dark matter is extremely weak, can combine with other dark matter if momentum between galaxies approaches zero. It does interact with other dark matter when the momentum is next to none, otherwise it doesn't interact with other dark matter or any matter.

No kidding? You & the DeliriousBen cadre of voters. What religious holy book are you paraphrasing? I guess I would understand better where you're coming from if you would have posted this on a Sunday morning or some religious holiday because the funny farm DM crowd here are giving this DM thing all the qualities & characteristics of an untouchable, unobservable, all pervasive spirit guiding us through the cosmos.
flag
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
A new study of colliding galaxy clusters has found that dark matter doesn't even interact with itself. [10] The gravitational force attracting the matter, causing concentration of the matter in a small space and leaving much space with low matter concentration: dark matter and energy. There is an asymmetry between the mass of the electric charges, for example proton and electron, can understood by the asymmetrical Planck Distribution Law. This temperature dependent energy distribution is asymmetric around the maximum intensity, where the annihilation of matter and antimatter is a high probability event. The asymmetric sides are creating different frequencies of electromagnetic radiations being in the same intensity level and compensating each other. One of these compensating ratios is the electron – proton mass ratio. The lower energy side has no compensating intensity level, it is the dark energy and the corresponding matter is the dark matter.
jalmy
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
So, the dark matter doesn't (appear) to interact with itself because it is anti-matter. And as anti-matter, it has anti-gravity. So in fact it is interacting with itself but it simply pushes away rather than clump, like gas. Also another incorrect assumption astronomers make is that the dark matter is gravitationaly lensing light in the same way that matter does. But with anti-gravity it would do the same thing with light and actually bend it away from the dense areas rather than toward the dense areas. So the map they show above is actually showing you the inverse or where the dark matter is. In other words, it is showing you where the anti-matter isn't at.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2015
@jalmy, I think the "anti-matter" comparison to DM that you've made may be a little off but as you suggest, it's all a matter of how the funny farm science crowd digests this DM narrative. Even antimatter behaves in perfect accord with the laws of gravity Einstein set forth in his General Relativity, so there is no anomally there with regard to the behavior of gravity.

But now, the weirded out narratives we're being inundated by this selective behavior of DM gravity is beginning to read & like a comic book with their superimposed blue purple halos all over the pictures they present. I can just picture in my mind the favorite color of shirts worn by the DM faithful, bluish purple.

ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2015
There is no evidence of protons and neutrons existing outside a negatively charged rotating field or outside of its electrons that orbit it, without being in a magnetic field of a body or magnetic particle accelerators loop field, these constructions only exist in a field bubble, because they are manufactured in that environment,along with a dark matter environment and a positively charged particle emissions environment, those are the three interacting environments with their parts you need to construct them .
liquidspacetime
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
Q. Why is the particle always detected traveling through a single slit in a double slit experiment?
A. The particle always travels through a single slit. It is the associated wave in the dark matter which passes through both.

What ripples when galaxy clusters collide is what waves in a double slit experiment; the dark matter.

Einstein's gravitational wave is de Broglie's wave of wave-particle duality; both are waves in the dark matter.

Dark matter displaced by matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
TabulaMentis
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2015
Liquidspacetime is correct... It's all in the waves man...
kulashaker
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2015
I'm not sure dark matter could form into sizable chunks. It doesn't interact with other dark matter (or ordinary matter), so a block of it could only exist if it was held together within a Gravitational Well to form.... what? (does the exclusion principle apply to DM? Or would it collapse into a singularity?). You wouldn't expect other particles which have a very low interaction to conventional matter, like nutrenos, to clump under their own mass, so why should DM? None of this means that individual particles (if that's what they are) wouldn't be influenced by, or contribute to, gravitational gradients.

Perhaps some dark matter does collect at the centre of large conventional matter masses, like stars and planets. But I'm not sure it could form naturally into sizeable chunks anywhere else.
DarkLordKelvin
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
The last two paragraphs of the PO synopsis don't seem to make sense. In the 2nd to last one, "non-gravitationally" seems like it should read "gravitationally" (as already noted by others). Also, it is not clear what kind of "proton-proton" interaction is being referenced .. were they hypothesizing that there was some sort of DM-analogue to the electrostatic force? If so, is this really the first time the extent of DM's interaction with itself has been "constrained" to that extent? I mean, the electrostatic force is pretty darn strong, and also sufficiently long-range that momentum changing "collisions" don't even require the sort of hard-sphere interaction alluded to by the "bounce" comment at the end.
DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
There is no evidence of protons and neutrons existing outside a negatively charged rotating field or outside of its electrons that orbit it, without being in a magnetic field of a body or magnetic particle accelerators loop field


That is certainly wrong .. free neutrons and protons are observed routinely as products of nuclear reactions; for example there is a measurable flux of both particles from the sun, particularly in coincidence with solar flare activity; the "solar wind" of charged particles coming from the sun contains a high fraction of free protons.

Free protons can be created by irradiating H-atoms with sufficiently short-wavelength UV light (i.e. photon energy greater than 13.6 eV). Since most of the normal matter in the universe is H-atoms, and many of those are in the near-perfect vacuum of free space, it's safe to assume that a decent fraction of those have been photo ionized, and thus exist as free protons; 90% of cosmic rays are high energy protons.
TimLong2001
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2015
It's not surprising that dark matter is still a "mystery" since its existence is based on the erroneous notion that the background red shift is due to expansion.
yyz
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2015
A preprint of the paper in Science has been posted on arXiv:

http://fr.arxiv.o...03.07675

(Also, agree with DLK & others, this PR on the paper is really messed up)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2015
A preprint of the paper in Science has been posted on arXiv:

(Also, agree with DLK & others, this PR on the paper is really messed up)

.....and would you have noticed if others of us hadn't pointed it out? And how about that blue purple superimposed airbrushed halo on those photos? Would you have noticed it isn't real if someone had not pointed that out to you as well?

.......also there's a small paper called General Relativity, it explains all about how gravity works along with the field equations proving it. Also a guy by the name of Einstein didn't need to improvise a DM narrative to calculate gravitational lensing years before it was actually observed, that's also part of GR.
Captain Stumpy
3.1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2015
There is no such thing as dark matter
@ren
DM is a place holder name for observed effects that we can see and we can measure, but don't have a name for, which is billions of times more evidence than you have for this comment
There is the structure of vacuum of cosmic space by which the Creator can control every single atom in the universe by his will - the divine matrix
there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that your delusional sky faerie (or any other deity) exists
and before you claim that your historical myth book is evidence... there IS evidence that it was plagiarized from other religions, falsely authored, and by simply reading it, you can see that there is NO truth in it, from GEN to REV

you need to quit posting on a science site and take your religious stupidity elsewhere
there are forums for that
this isn't it
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Dethe
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
What this study actually did, it attempted to measure the changes in dark matter distribution induced not with massive galaxies ("Bullet cluster" effect), but with dark matter around them by itself. And it found none of them, which implies, that the dark matter clouds don't affect each other. We already have experimental indicia of it from Podkletnov experiments with scalar wave beams from local superconductive sources, which reportedly didn't exhibit any difference even at the "thousand kilometers" distance - which implies their usage as an anti-satellite weapon. These experiments and observations exclude the particle-like structure of scalar waves and particle models of dark matter based on supersymetric extensions of Standard Model. They favor the dense aether model, in which dark matter results from gravitational shielding effects between matter and its formed with scalar waves of vacuum (with excess of longitudinal waves).
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
If dark matter was a foundational part to hold charged particles together in atoms, and in a star core the density pressure and heat made the compression of a new element impossible and the heavy atom reached its structural limits in that environment,then the parts of the atom would create a particle plasma field the dark matter parts would collect to in the star core and on super nova it would be compressed into a dark matter mass with gravity with an orbiting particle plasma field an inverted star core.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Dark lord Kelvin free protons and neutrons are still in the stars rotating negatively charged field sphere to maintain their structural construction outside of a negatively charged environment would be a wonder to behold
ursiny33
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Dark lord Kelvin the whole mechanical purpose of an orbiting electron around a proton is to maintain a negatively charged field sphere around the construction of a proton to keep its structural integrity outside a negatively charged magnetic sphere of the star so it can exist on its own in deep space
DarkLordKelvin
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
Dark lord Kelvin free protons and neutrons are still in the stars rotating negatively charged field sphere to maintain their structural construction outside of a negatively charged environment would be a wonder to behold
Ok, you have just made (yet another) declarative statement that is at odds with accepted theories of fundamental physics. If you want to be taken seriously on a science site you need to:

a) elaborate as to how what you have claimed is actually consistent with accepted theories of fundamental physics (e.g. what is the "star's rotating negatively charged field sphere"? How far does it extend from the star? Which theoretical model predicts/explains its existence/properties?)

b) provide a reference to some sort of scientifically valid external reference (preferably peer-reviewed journal articles or books) that supports and explains your claims

c) give us the name of your dealer, so that we can share your substance-induced delusion ;)
nikola_milovic_77
1 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2015
Dark matter and dark energy does not exist in the universe .This is a figment of science and scientists who are trying to put himself above the Creator of the universe and think they can make you stupid, and those people who can, using intuition and natural law, that they understand what it is in the universe what science calls "dark". The dark can only be what we do not know anything and what that dark and there because it is a "scientific mirage" of those who do not understand the structure of the universe. What is absurd to estimate how much of something unknown to have something about which we know nothing, and that they are "dark" and the universe. We as human beings and the last patent Creator we consist of something of the two Entities: material-energetic and spiritual entity. So also the universe of the two entities
nikola_milovic_77
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Material and energy entity is all manifested, visible and measurable, which I call the COSMOS who is "immersed" in the other entity who is infinite in all, this is a spiritual entity which has been based substance ether from which it originated COSMOS and all energy and who are continually coming back again into the ether, through the black hole. Accept the existence of a spiritual entity with the Absolute consciousness of the universe (ACU) as well as the immense power of creation and dissolution of everything in the cosmos.
nikola_milovic_77
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Ether is to dark as you think it's some matter and energy. Ether has nothing in common with matter and energy, because it is the basis of spiritual entities and from matter is formed of the same high vibrations, forming strings whose cross-section leads to the formation of the first forms of matter: quarks and gluons and so on.
We need to start thinking again who we are and why we can not understand a lot of things and we are part of these components. I think it's time to start studying the spirituality of the universe, but ATTENTION this spirituality has nothing to do with religion.
nikola_milovic_77
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2015
Why do you think my comment longer than you like, when he many times shorter and more precise and priorodniji of those scientific nonsense that you post and I am compelled to break it into three parts of the same whole. Where is the democracy and equality? At least I am offering natural conclusions.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
Ren82 claimed
Do not take trust to anything expressed by another person, unless that person is your best friend which proved that you can trust to him.
You have often mentioned god in your posts but at christian fundamental level but ignore islam - why is that ?

So u completely trust Moses do U - is he your (long time & really old) friend ?

Is there ANYTHING to corroborate claims of Moses (& David who conceded a god only spoke to him in a dream) ?

Ren82, you so often come up with hypocritical views which lack any sort of critical thinking behaviour or even basic functionality.

How can anyone ever corroborate & therefore 'trust' anything written without some sort of Provenance and/or Evidentiary basis which has something, even partly, connected to experimental evidence, instrumentation or substantiation ?

You should know trust is earned & you should also be cognisant trust is so easily transient & perishable, try to understand pressures affecting trust !
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2015
nikola_milovic_77 claimed
..This is a figment of science and scientists who are trying to put himself above the Creator of the universe and think they can make you stupid, ... what it is in the universe what science calls "dark"
Forgotten which nick u posted under ? LoL

Tell us how a 'creator' communicates, any better than a person making claims ?

How does a 'creator' distribute information, any better than lazy humans ?

From Evidence, your claimed 'creator' (the one from Moses ?) demonstrates clearly it acts FAR more like a Devil; punishing BADLY, killing & destroying :-(

Moses bible is ONLY about; status, punishment & authority - no Education !

Yuck nikola_milovic_77 claimed
The dark can only be what we do not know anything and what that dark and there because it is a "scientific mirage".. and that they are "dark" ..
You nikola_milovic_77, demonstrate a lot of "dark" & re impotent 'creator'

Please go to the dark side you seem to focus on !

Yuck
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2015
there is absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that your delusional sky faerie (or any other deity) exists
You're referring to DM here right?

and before you claim that your historical myth book is evidence
And yours from out of the 30's....I guess I could see why you'd remember that.

there IS evidence that it was plagiarized from other religions, falsely authored, and by simply reading it, you can see that there is NO truth in it, from GENeral to RElatiVity
Hey, did you notice I did a little airbrushing of your words? Probably don't like it do you? Yep, a good example of everything this article is all about.

you need to quit posting on a science site and take your religious stupidity elsewhere
there are forums for that this isn't it
And you should do the same until you've learned how to do Differential Equations so that you could converse with even the slightest modicum of brevity about anything dealing with the depths of science discussed here.
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Ren82 claimed
The christianity is the faith of the free man and free choice, at the heart of which stands the love to God and man
No. Freewill only comes from full complete education, Moses' god didn't fully educate eve, since Moses' god knew the outcome before it was an ugly setup, Evidence shows Moses' god is a; Punisher, Destroyer & Killer - ie Devil !

Ren82 claimed
Look at the world where we live to see the beauty and harmony of God's creation, which is ypression of his love and creative spirit
No. Nature is eat & be eaten everywhere & Always. Noticed carnivores, animals eating plants & other animals ?

We observe a narrow (short) slice of the competition & brutality of NATURE. As humans we are the top predator, u EAT meat or plants. Your illusion of harmony is extensive local chemical equilibria subject to patterns.

Ren82 claimed
Because the love and free spirit is basis of creativity
No, u ignore immense pervasive conflict everywhere !

cont
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Ren82 claimed
The Son of God who is sinless sacrifice itself on the cross to atone the sins of people and to give them a chance for salvation by grace and faith in God and God' laws and principles
This story proves it had nothing to do with any god because:-
1. Moses' god isn't limited to just one son, supposed to be omnipotent
2. There is no way to have anything corroborated
3. Method of passing this on is solely dependent on humans, if the god was real, he wouldn't be limited
4. Shows more punishment & conflict, with no education :-(
5. Jesus, the claimed son, wrote nothing ever

Story acceptance relies upon emotional hypnosis only, thats all !

Ren82 claimed
No other fictional or pagan gods has done such thing for the people
There is NOTHING to prove ANY claimed god is real - nowhere !

Ren82
No one but God predicted with absolute accuracy the future world events explained in the last book of the new testament
No, there is NO 'absolute' accuracy !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
Ren82 claimed
So dark matter and dark energy dominating the universe? Why dark but not invisible? Is this science or the occultism? It sound like luciferian doctrine
Indeed !

In relation to your claims of some loving god, this is another nail in its coffin !

Your god would KNOW ALL about that wouldn't he/she/it because it made lucifer to START with KNOWING full well every nasty deed which all fallen angels would ever perform for ever.

Old testament of Moses shows your god to be very very nasty, all it ever seems to do is; Punish (especially the innocent), destroy & kill whilst 'wanting' worship for being 'loving' ?

How is this sane ?

How does the claimed god (of any religion) communicate unequivocally ?

Haven't u noticed Ren82, there are lots of religions ALL making claims they cannot all be absolutely true and its clear the god of ALL of them just cannot communicate well AT ALL !

Your god & all it has done doesn't make sense, your god is proven Nasty !
dogbert
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2015
Mike_Massen,

It is clear you hate God. You don't have to repeat ad infinitum.

I generally let your rants against God slide, but it is getting tiresome.

This is a science site. It is not suitable for proselytizing.

Why don't you do your proselytizing on some religious sites?
ursiny33
1 / 5 (1) Mar 29, 2015
Dark lord Kelvin, don't get excited professor, in a hydrogen atom a positively charged proton has an electron that orbits it, it has a negative charge, it constructs a negatively charge field sphere around that proton, now a star has a magnetic field made from the very same electron with a negative charge, I don't think you would need a peer reviewed paper to conceive that those trillions of negatively charged electrons are creating a super giants negatively charged magnetic field sphere, I believe every physicist would except that mechanical understanding, as for free protons and free neutrons that exist in this environment,that you claim are ejected from the star it is quite mechanically possible that their not ejected from the star be created in that magnetic environment by induction from sub atomic particles in the area
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
dogbert claimed
It is clear you hate God. You don't have to repeat ad infinitum
No. You totally misunderstand. I don't hate a thing that obviously doesn't exist & has no logical reason for its activity AND is only claim of a human without ANYTHING to corroborate !

dogbert muttered
I generally let your rants against God slide, but it is getting tiresome
I ask direct & invasive questions of those that claim a 'creator' both they & the claimed 'creator' cannot seem to answer any direct questions - why is that ?

dogbert observed
This is a science site. It is not suitable for proselytizing
Great then Ren82 & others should NOT claim any creator or they know anything of its intentions - ever !

dogbert asked
Why don't you do your proselytizing on some religious sites?
Obviously I'm countering naive attempts at subtle proselytizing re the claim of a 'creator' & what people imagine they follow from an old book with faulty logic & very badly distributed !
Mike_Massen
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
ursiny33 claimed
...in a hydrogen atom a positively charged proton has an electron that orbits it, it has a negative charge, it constructs a negatively charge field sphere around that proton, now a star has a magnetic field made from the very same electron with a negative charge, I don't think you would need a peer reviewed paper to conceive that those trillions of negatively charged electrons are creating a super giants negatively charged magnetic field sphere
But, if u did think through u would accept the field sums locally ie by virtue of fact it has opposing poles ie N & S & any nett imbalance is negligible. Heliospheric field perturbation of ~24 days is another matter !

Its known magnetic forces trounce gravity by ~10^39 X but, that's between poles afaik & beyond local summing, Eg at Earth's surface sun's field is unmeasurable & btw other than minor change in cosmic ray deflection eg by skewing Earth's field Sun has nil effect on climate too.

cont
Benni
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
No. You totally misunderstand. I don't hate a thing that obviously doesn't exist & has no logical reason for its activity AND is only claim of a human without ANYTHING to corroborate


@MM: In fact you are one of the biggest purveyors of hate rhetoric on this site, you along with that block of hate voters composed of the Stumpy block of hate. Why don't the whole bunch of you "hate block voters" do something useful during your retirement years & take up a study of SR or GR & actually learn something about some real science. Whoops, that's right, it keeps slipping my mind that it's a math problem, in my world we call it Differential Equations.

dogbert muttered
And why you as an old man continues using arcane little catch phrases to make up for your dismal background in math & science. It speaks to a lack of real substance in your own life.

Why don't you just stop your muttering about why you think purveying hate is what makes you imagine you are so smart.

DarkLordKelvin
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2015
in a hydrogen atom a positively charged proton has an electron that orbits it
sort of
it constructs a negatively charge field sphere around that proton
not really, you need to use QM, and the electrically neutral atom exerts no appreciable external field
now a star has a magnetic field made from the very same electron with a negative charge
No. Stars' magnetic fields come from convection currents in electrically neutral plasma
those trillions of electrons are creating a super giants negatively charged magnetic field sphere
that is a confused "word salad" of terminology
I believe every physicist would except that mechanical understanding
certainly not; any physicist would consider that garbled nonsense
as for free protons and free neutrons ... it is quite mechanically possible that their not ejected from the star be created in that magnetic environment by induction from sub atomic particles in the area
More faux-scientific gibberish.
ursiny33
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2015
Mike Madsen . Now we are talking of the quantum particle make up of the electrons, they are classified as a negatively charged particle,even though they are constructed of quantum particles of neutral,positive and negative quantum particles because of the proportion of its total electric mass of the dominant charge if its 51 percent negative,its classified as a negative particle, lucky thing they have those positive quantum particles or it would be impossible for the to chain up in field lines, to produce a magnetic field ,electrons in stars field all come from the same source orbiting electrons on atoms that are kinetically set free by collision with each other under compression, those exiting the north pole or the south pole are the same the only difference is the axis of their state in their flight path ,up axis or down axis , coming out of the north pole there just showing their positive quantum minority particle on top ,instead of the bottom of their construction
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
emotional immaturity which is expressed in an unwillingness to accept the truth and to take responsibility for yours actions
@renTROLL
this is called transference
don't blame your own inadequacies on me or those whom don't agree with your delusional sky faerie... it is NOT a truth if you can't prove it, it is a FAITH, a BELIEF... NOT A TRUTH
Do not feel obliged to comment on others participants whose views does not coincide with generally accepted dogmas in scientific world. Try to think independently
first off, this is WHY i DON'T BELIEVE in your sky faerie
i think independently and i veryify/validate what i learn... IOW- SCIENCE
Do not take trust to anything expressed by another person, unless that person is your best friend
i trust NO ONE
PERIOD
i validate ALL claims, even the ones from my "best friend"
this is YOUR logical fallacy
you trust because you think they are out for your best interest
they're NOT... they are out for THEIR best interest
Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
emotional immaturity
@renTROLL
LMFAO
ok, so what you are saying is this:
IF i accept no one at their word and request validation of facts as well as accurate production of said facts... and
IF i only trust that which can be PROVEN and validated, then
I am emotionally insecure and immature?
WTF?

that is your religion talking...
just because you are willing to suspend your logic or common sense for the sake of a person or a faith and you can't believe what is logical or scientific doesn't mean everyone is like you

i grew up
i learned what a lie was and how to combat it
i learned how to find THE TRUTH... obviously something that you are not familiar with

just because you THINK your religion is good, doesn't mean it is
your own religion is STILL killing people with fear, from homosexuals to those who don't fit in with your dogma
THAT is TRUTH
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
Benni claimed
@MM: In fact you are one of the biggest purveyors of hate rhetoric on this site,
Ah, had you been a keen observer you would notice I do hate those:-

1 Resorting to claims skills/degrees when failing to articulate logic of their idea
2 Claiming 'god did it' in that a bible somehow explains when it is also only another claim
3 Claiming political motives whilst ignoring Science - especially Physics !
4 Repeating irrelevancies & ignoring Evidence
5 Obfuscators

But, u should notice if u r genuine, I start giving people chance to make their case, sadly many DON'T & instead claim; they know better, creators, politics, conspiracy

Benni suggested
..do something useful during your retirement years & take up a study of SR or GR..
Done way ahead of u; EE 1976-82, BaSci 2008, Food Science 2010 Curtin University West Aust, stud No. 07602128

How about u please ?

Benni, your knee-jerk obverse preoccupation on DEs fails attempted 'authority' ;-)

cont
Mike_Massen
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 30, 2015
continued
Benni claimed
dogbert muttered
And why you as an old man continues using arcane little catch phrases to make up for your dismal background in math & science
Its true dogbert does a lot of muttering but, its obviously not a catch phrase ie Its not infectious :-)

Benni offered
It speaks to a lack of real substance in your own life
In respect of irrelevant mutterings, claims of creators that others 'did it', your focus on DEs etc Blimey where is your substance, is there any ?

Institute, year started, qualifications please ?

Benni's comprehension fails urging
Why don't you just stop your muttering about why you think purveying hate is what makes you imagine you are so smart
Evidence clearly shows I ask questions of those making claims especially the arbitrary ones with any appeal to authority & that includes your naive preoccupation with DEs is a pretty narrow aspect of university study :-(

DE's, enamored with your new discovery ;-)
Urgelt
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Cranks, cranks everywhere, and not a drop of sanity... hey, I can play, too! I'll just put on my tin foil hat...

So here's the deal: this result is telling us that dark matter doesn't interact gravitationally with itself, only regular matter. Guys, this is a *major* violation of known physics. Either something does, or does not, interact gravitationally. This result is the first observation which sustains the view that dark matter is a mistake in theory and calculation.

And it could be - if we *should* be correcting red-shift measurements for time dilation.

SR treats time dilation as reciprocal, and so no correction to red-shift is needed. But GR treats it as directional. So does the Absolute Lorentz Transformation. Einstein and Lorentz hedged their bets.

No experiment conducted to date demonstrates that reciprocal time dilation is even a thing. GPS time dilation shows the opposite: it's directional. Edward Kipreos might be on the right track, I'm thinking.
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 30, 2015
Clever stuff this DM, it has its' own version of gravity that is different from the version of gravity that holds us on planet Earth & in orbit about the Sun, creates gravitational lensing, keeps spiral galaxies from flying apart, but it is not attracted to itself.


No. As usual none of you bothered to read the actual paper before declaring it wrong. The paper constrains the presence of self-interacting forces ASIDE from gravity. This does not say dark matter does not interact gravitationally with itself, it claims they can place strict limits on other interactions.

"non-gravitationally" seems like it should read "gravitationally"


No, read the paper. It's titled "The non-gravitational interactions of dark matter in colliding galaxy clusters", now tell me it is a mistake.
Urgelt
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
IMP-9 wrote, "The paper constrains the presence of self-interacting forces ASIDE from gravity. This does not say dark matter does not interact gravitationally with itself, it claims they can place strict limits on other interactions."

Of course IMP-9 did not bother to mention what those other interactions are. There's a good reason for that. Dark matter is detectable *only* through its gravitational interactions. There are no other interactions being witnessed.

The reason the paper is titled as it is - awkwardly - is that they didn't see gravitational interactions between masses of dark matter. They didn't see *any* interactions between masses of dark matter - since gravity is all they could have observed, and they didn't see it.
IMP-9
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Of course IMP-9 did not bother to mention what those other interactions are.


Because that's not what the paper is about. It's an observation to constrain other interactions in general. Dark matter has only every been observed though gravity, that doesn't mean it cannot have other interactions yet to be measured, that is what they are seeking to constrain.

The reason the paper is titled as it is - awkwardly - is that they didn't see gravitational interactions between masses of dark matter.


No that's not what the paper says, read it. You are literally guessing based on a title. That is ruled out by cluster dynamics anyway as if dark matter didn't gravitationally interact with other dark matter the stars would be striped out of dark matter halos in clusters leading to no NFW profiles in cluster sub-halos, you wouldn't get flat rotation curves.
Accata
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2015
No that's not what the paper says, read it
What this study actually did, it attempted to measure the changes in dark matter distribution induced not with massive galaxies ("Bullet cluster" effect), but with dark matter around them by itself. And it found none of them, which implies, that the dark matter clouds don't affect each other. We already have experimental indicia of it from Podkletnov experiments with scalar wave beams from local superconductive sources, which reportedly didn't exhibit any difference even at the "thousand kilometers" distance - which implies their usage as an anti-satellite weapon. These experiments and observations exclude the particle-like structure of scalar waves and particle models of dark matter based on supersymetric extensions of Standard Model. They favor the dense aether model, in which dark matter results from gravitational shielding effects between matter and its formed with scalar waves of vacuum (with excess of longitudinal waves).
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Dark matter has only every been observed though gravity
It has not been observed through gravity.......what observation can you point out? And don't try the gravity lensing narrative because Spiral Galaxies do not create lensing, they don't have enough mass, it is well known 99.999999999999% of lensing is created by giant Elliptical galaxies.

in cluster sub-halos, you wouldn't get flat rotation curves.
Do you even know what galaxies type "rotational curves" are associated with? Let me clue you in, not Elliptical types. Do you even know what the "rotational speed" is of outermost orbital stars of Eliiptical versus Spiral galaxies?

The ratio of the rotational speed differentials between the two galaxies types is 100:1, I know you never knew that because you don't have anything in your posting record stating you know this. And do you know why? It's a little thing called the inherent high gravity fields of Ellipticals far surpassing that of Spirals.
IMP-9
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
it attempted to measure the changes in dark matter distribution induced not with massive galaxies ("Bullet cluster" effect), but with dark matter around them by itself


Blatant lie. Quote me the section from the paper which claims this.

what observation can you point out?


Rotation curves, lensing weak and strong, the CMB power spectrum, the formation of clusters and evolution of the Hubble parameter.

Do you even know what the "rotational speed" is of outermost orbital stars of Eliiptical versus Spiral galaxies?


You have a terrible memory because I'm the one who corrected you on this twice now, you still ignore what I said. Bulk rotation =/= orbital speed. You can have a galaxy with zero rotation velocity, but the stars are still swinging round. Most ellipticals however do not have these tiny rotation speeds. You're comparing apples to oranges. Dark matter has been applied to elliptical galaxies when the orbital speeds are properly calculated.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
You have a terrible memory because I'm the one who corrected you on this twice now
You never knew anything about configurations of Ellipticals versus Spirals until I pointed it out, then you simply got POed about it because it was decimating the DM narrative.

Most ellipticals however do not have these tiny rotation speeds
Still totally clueless aren't you? In Ellipticals the rotational speeds of outer orbital stars are 2 km/s & for Spirals 200 km/s, so for sure you're right that it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Dark matter has been applied to elliptical galaxies when the orbital speeds are properly calculated.
No it hasn't, Newtonian gravity has always the sole configuration for calculating rotational speeds of stars inside Ellipticals.

Before you make anymore foolish attempts at mis-characterizing Newtonian gravity by mingling it with DM, take some time off & study Einstein's GR & your apples & oranges won't be so rotten by comparison.
Urgelt
2.2 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
Benni coughed up a furball and wrote, "(Dark matter) has not been observed through gravity.......what observation can you point out? And don't try the gravity lensing narrative because Spiral Galaxies do not create lensing, they don't have enough mass, it is well known 99.999999999999% of lensing is created by giant Elliptical galaxies."

The rotational speed of any galaxy or galaxy cluster is measured by evaluating the red-shift from different points of the observed object. Astronomers also need to estimate the distances to the measurement points. With vectors and distances, they can calculate the mass required to produce the observed apparent motion.

But you're a crank, not a scientist, so I don't expect you to know this.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
The rotational speed of any galaxy or galaxy cluster is measured by evaluating the red-shift from different points of the observed object.
No kidding, you just learned that? How do you think hey know the difference in the rotational speeds of Ellipticals versus Spirals? Or are you having a problem understanding that too? But you're a crank, not a scientist, so I don't expect you to know this.
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
In Ellipticals the rotational speeds of outer orbital stars are 2 km/s & for Spirals 200 km/s

No. Dispersion supported elliptical can have BULK rotation that low, rotationally supported elliptical (the majority) have bulk velocities of hundreds of kilometers per second. This is however not the speed of the orbits of the stars as demonstrated by the very high velocity dispersions. I have explained this to you too.

No it hasn't, Newtonian gravity has always the sole configuration for calculating rotational speeds of stars inside Ellipticals.


it has, I've already given you the paper and you've totally misread what I said, properly calculated from the data. You cannot take bulk rotation profiles and assume those are the orbits of the stars, if you have an isotropic velocity field you will get zero rotation, and yet the stars are still orbiting at normal speeds. You cannot ignore velocity dispersion in these calculations.
Urgelt
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
IMP-9 decided that his imagination is more interesting than science when he wrote, "You can have a galaxy with zero rotation velocity, but the stars are still swinging round."

Cue laughter.
Dethe
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2015
I already explained here, that the elliptical galaxies have even more dark matter, than these spiral ones - their dark matter is just separated from their stars in wide ring - so it cannot affect their orbital speed curves so easily. No need to open this issue once again.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2015
I already explained here, that the elliptical galaxies have even more dark matter, than these spiral ones - their dark matter is just separated from their stars in wide ring - so it cannot affect their orbital speed curves so easily. No need to open this issue once again.


You absolutely don't even know what you are talking about...........Have you ever heard of the Inverse Square Law? It is the fundamental law under which Newtonian Gravity governs the speeds at which stars inside Ellipticals orbit the center of the galaxy. It is the reason Rotation Curves cannot be applied to Ellipticals as they are to Spirals, but I guess you didn't know that or you would already have mentioned it & not brought up some corny idea for inserting DM into an equation (Inverse Square Law) to explain the orbital mechanics of stars in Ellipticals which operate in perfect accord with the Inverse Square Law. The problem with Spirals is that they do not behave in accordance with the ISL.

IMP-9
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2015
IMP-9 decided that his imagination is more interesting than science


Mock what you don't understand, nice. Since big science words were too difficult, i'll try again. You have 50% of your stars orbiting in one direction and 50% the opposite with the same distribution. What is the measured rotation speed of the galaxy? Zero. The velocity dispersion however is huge.

Ellipticals which operate in perfect accord with the Inverse Square Law


Which of course you cannot know without knowing the mass distribution. You're just spouting nonsense.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2015
Mock what you don't understand, nice, i'll try again. You have 50% of your stars orbiting in one direction and 50% the opposite with the same distribution
Of what? An Elliptical?

What is the measured rotation speed of the galaxy? Zero. The velocity dispersion however is huge
Ellipticals do not have a "rotation speed", it is not even "zero", this is because every star orbits the core in accord with the Inverse Square Law. Do you even know what ISL is? You must not because you can't dislodge the word "rotation" from your brain, "rotation" is what Spirals do. Ellipticals operate in perfect accord with the Inverse Square Law.

Which of course you cannot know without knowing the mass distribution. You're just spouting nonsense.

So you're accusing the entire Astrophysics community of "nonsense"? Just because you do not comprehend Newtonian Gravity & the Inverse Square Law? So be it, if it's beyond your comprehension there is nothing I can do to raise your IQ.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
It's interesting that 99.9..9 percent of atom is empty space.. Also 99.9..9 of universe is empty space.. Out of 0.00..1 percent of actual material we have to deduct another another 90 percent for dark matter, which still leaves us with billions worth of stuff we could see and understand..


Indeed you are onto something! That empty space is then full of a brew of a number of different diffusive elemental particles(?) so small they cannot be observed by the larger structures of our universe. When said particles distribution reaches a sufficiently strong imbalance they begin to interact and transform in a sustaining reaction, much like a burning fire combusts, creating a larger structure that we label a sub-atomic particle. This reaction propagates through the medium like a wildfire, limited by the reaction speed of transformation process that we call the speed of light.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2015
It's not surprising that dark matter is still a "mystery" since its existence is based on the erroneous notion that the background red shift is due to expansion.


Another excellent observation! The erroneous notion is easily discounted from a detailed examination of the Pioneer Anomaly. But this is firmly discounted by relativists in love with their math fantasy.
IMP-9
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2015
Yes elitpicals.

Ellipticals do not have a "rotation speed", it is not even "zero", this is because every star orbits the core in accord with the Inverse Square Law.


They do have a rotation speed, your ignorance of the topic is showing. The 2km/s you quote is the bulk rotation velocity. Individual stars have an orbit but you measure them as an ensemble, not individually. So you get velocity profiles with a bulk rotation and a dispersion. If there is an isotropic velocity dispersion in a perfect pressure supported elliptical then you have zero rotation. You can measure this rotation and you find most ellipticalls are rotationally supported.

So you're accusing the entire Astrophysics community of "nonsense"?


Don't completely deflect. You claim to know a law holds in one case and fails in another, with no possible way of knowing. Astronomers are consistent in their assumptions and they test their models but in these cases they are model dependent.
kcsdrg
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2015
I think the dark matter scientists are in a trap of their own making. Since their reputations and employment depend on a continuation of the study of Dark Matter, they are not willing to tell us what results from observation will FALSIFY their theory.

Every time they have looked for effects other than gravitational, the studies come up with Nothing. We try and find the Dark mater halos around local stars, Zero results.

Suggestion, stop calling it DARK MATTER. Dont imply it is a substance. Dont Imply it is matter. Just call it another place holder name. How about, Contra_Einstenian_Space-time Modality. CESM. Effect and that you are trying to study it.

If suspect that there are many Grad students having seconds thoughts about going into
THIS FIELD. especially after this finding. Some must surely smell that there are other
better theories that can be derived to explain the behavior of galaxies.
dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Mar 31, 2015
kcsdrg,

People promoting dark matter sometimes try to argue that it is a place holder. It is not. It is a kludge created when our observations of stellar movement did not match our models of gravity. It is totally imaginary.

Instead of creating imaginary mass, we should simply note that our models of gravity fail on stellar scales and try to develop models which do work.
IMP-9
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2015
stop calling it DARK MATTER


Dark Matter is one model of how to rectify the problem, a very good model as it turns out. Dark matter solves the problem with dark matter, it's a perfectly reasonable name. People have tried alternatives, to date they are far less successful. Dark matter on the other hand is aging well, for example the CMB power spectrum which shows baryonic and matter densities being unequal.

And peoples employment does not depend on the model you work on, people change fields. The standard model has changed before.

Instead of creating imaginary mass, we should simply note that our models of gravity fail on stellar scales


Which would be flawed logic. When the standard light mass ratios combined with gravity couldn't explain the dynamics of galaxies you only the combination is wrong, you can't claim to know which. The sensible thing is to try and change both, people did and dark matter is the one which proved it's worth.
dogbert
3 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2015
IMP-9,
Instead of creating imaginary mass, we should simply note that our models of gravity fail on stellar scales [and try to develop models which do work.]


Which would be flawed logic. When the standard light mass ratios combined with gravity couldn't explain the dynamics of galaxies you only the combination is wrong, you can't claim to know which. The sensible thing is to try and change both, people did and dark matter is the one which proved it's worth.


In more than 40 years of searching, not a single particle of dark matter has ever been found. We have never seen any of it with our telescopes. We have not found any in the solar system. Our colliders do not produce it and our standard model does not predict it. During the time we have searched diligently for dark matter and failed to find it, we have not found any unicorns, dragons or calgrotes either.

It is past time to reject fantasy and return to scientific inquiry.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2015
Liquidspacetime is correct... It's all in the waves man...


NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

The "subquantic medium" is the aether.

'The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets
https://www.youtu...0ygr08tE

'Yves Couder Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole]'
https://www.youtu...Wv5dqSKk
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2015
NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of W, arise from the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call "empty space"."

That is the rationalization for "quantum" behavior according to the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, but it is not a required aspect of a QM theory. "Standard" QM (i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation) and the Many-Worlds interpretation do not require postulation of a "subquantic medium", and their predictions of observed behavior are at least as good as dBB. Occam's razor therefore argues against existence of "subquantic medium".
The "subquantic medium" is the aether.
I don't think most proponents of dBB would agree with you there.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2015
That is the rationalization for "quantum" behavior according to the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, but it is not a required aspect of a QM theory. "Standard" QM (i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation) and the Many-Worlds interpretation do not require postulation of a "subquantic medium", and their predictions of observed behavior are at least as good as dBB. Occam's razor therefore argues against existence of "subquantic medium".


I am not discussing de Broglie-Bohm theory. I am discussing de Broglie's Double Solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there is the physical wave which guides the particle and the wavefuction which is statistical and non-physical.

In the Copenhagen interpretation you are not allowed to consider where the particle exists prior to its detection. In Many-worlds the particle exists in infinite worlds prior to detection. Occam's razor therefore argues there is a particle AND a wave in wave-particle duality.
Tuxford
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2015
Occam's razor therefore argues there is a particle AND a wave in wave-particle duality.


In SubQuantum Kinectics, the wave is a physical disturbance of the distribution of the underlying multi-component diffusive medium, whose constituents are far too small to be directly observed. The particle is the interaction of these constituents, producing a self-sustaining transmutation reaction (available constituent fuel permitting) of various constituents into other types of constituents. The reaction propagates through the medium at up to the speed of light. If moving through the medium near light speed, little transmutation speed is left available for alterations in the 'particle' itself. Hence, time appears to slow down.

The physical disturbance wave precedes the particle, like a propagating sound wave in air, producing the pattern until the particle reaction passes through one or the other slit.
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
Suggestion, stop calling it DARK MATTER. Dont imply it is a substance. Dont Imply it is matter.
I've not problem with it, until the matter is defined with presence of space-time curvatures. These curvatures just don't form a well distinguished particles - but they're still exist there... It's a transition between matter and virtual particle field.

In water surface analogy of space-time the photon is a Russel soliton, the material particle (like the neutrino) correspond the Falaco solitons - well, and the dark matter is all that turbulent mess between these two well distinguished forms. It's not so difficult to imagine it. The dark matter has its firm place in dense aether model.
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
In SubQuantum Kinectics, ...


Mostly agree.

The physical disturbance wave precedes the particle, like a propagating sound wave in air, producing the pattern until the particle reaction passes through one or the other slit.


The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is a physical process determined by the physical state of the aether in which it exists. The faster the clock moves through the aether the greater the displacement of the aether by the clock the greater the displaced aether pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the clock, the slower the clock ticks.
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups...her.html

"Think of waves on the surface of water. ... if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium."

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
Dethe
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2015
Many aspects of vacuum behavior weren't known in the Einstein times. Actually just the existence of CMBR/gravitational waves (Brownian noise), light waves (surface ripples), photons (Russel solitons), neutrinos (Falaco solitons) and dark matter (surface turbulence) indicates, that the vacuum is formed with particle matter, because all the analogies couldn't work together, if some aspect of water surface (like the particle-like structure) would be missing in vacuum. This is a consequence of inductive reasoning: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck".

Please note, that the existence of water molecules cannot be detected directly with surface ripples, only deduced. So that Einstein was still right in his deduction, if we would use only light for aether presence detection. But we can also use many other means, like the formation of matter-antimatter pairs or the red shift, etc.
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
...that the existence of water molecules cannot be detected directly with surface ripples, only deduced. So that Einstein was still right in his deduction, if we would use only light for aether presence detection. But we can also use many other means, like the formation of matter-antimatter pairs or the red shift, etc.


I did not have the characters for the complete Einstein quote.

I think the discussion of the aether consisting of particles or not is missing the bigger picture.

'Empty' space has mass which physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the mass that fills 'empty' space.

The deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the mass that fills 'empty' space.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime.
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
Dark Matter is one model of how to rectify the problem
Dark matter is just a common denomination for group of phenomena, which usually manifest together (transparency, light lensing, cohesive motion of massive objects) - no less, no more. It doesn't imply any further assumption about dark matter nature.
I think the discussion of the aether consisting of particles or not is missing the bigger picture
In dense aether model the density fluctuations play a role of particles. They're itself formed another density fluctuations, etc. ab initio. Like the particle fluid formed with vortex of another fluid, and so on recursively. We even have experimental analogy of such system in condensing supercritical fluid. Such a compound fluid in narrow range of condition consists of density fluctuations of itself. But the infinite character of this system doesn't imply, that all its infinite levels must be observable, directly observable the more.
DarkLordKelvin
2 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2015
That is the rationalization for "quantum" behavior according to the de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of QM, but it is not a required aspect of a QM theory. "Standard" QM (i.e. the Copenhagen interpretation) and the Many-Worlds interpretation do not require postulation of a "subquantic medium", and their predictions of observed behavior are at least as good as dBB. Occam's razor therefore argues against existence of "subquantic medium".
I am not discussing de Broglie-Bohm theory. I am discussing de Broglie's Double Solution theory.
Well, dBB theory is an improved and extended version of de Broglie's initial double solution and pilot wave theories, so that's a distinction without a difference. You referenced Couder's experiments, which seem to be a classical macroscopic manifestation of many predictions of pilot wave theory, i.e. dBB interpretation.
Occam's razor therefore argues there is a particle AND a wave in wave-particle duality.
Why?
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2015
Well, dBB theory is an improved and extended version of de Broglie's initial double solution and pilot wave theories, so that's a distinction without a difference.


Incorrect.

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS
A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION
by
LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"During the summer of 1951, there came to my attention, much to my surprise, a paper by David Bohm which appeard subsequently in [i]The Physical Review[/i]. In this paper Bohm went back to my theory of pilot-wave, considering the [wave function] wave as physical reality. ... My first reaction on reading Bohm's work was to reiterate, in a communication to the [i]Comptes rendus de l' Academie des Sciences[/i], the objects, insurmountable in my opinion, that seemed to render impossible any attribution of physical reality to the [wave function] wave, and consequently, to render impossible the adoption of the pilot-wave theory.[page 91]"
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2015
Occam's razor therefore argues there is a particle AND a wave in wave-particle duality.
Why?


If you can't ask where the particle physically exists during a double slit experiment you are not doing physics.

If you think the particle exists in infinite worlds during a double slit experiment, which is untestable, then you are not doing physics.

Occam's razor:

'Empty' space has mass which physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the mass that fills 'empty' space.

The deformation of spacetime is the state of displacement of the mass that fills 'empty' space.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime.

The mass which fills 'empty' space displaced by the matter relates general relativity and quantum mechanics.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2015
In dense aether model the density fluctuations play a role of particles. They're itself formed another density fluctuations, etc. ab initio. Like the particle fluid formed with vortex of another fluid, and so on recursively. We even have experimental analogy of such system in http://i.imgur.com/ZOmGVT7.gif. Such a compound fluid in narrow range of condition consists of density fluctuations of itself. But the infinite character of this system doesn't imply, that all its infinite levels must be observable, directly observable the more.


Which is again missing the larger picture.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

The state of displacement of the aether is the deformation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime.
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Well, dBB theory is an improved and extended version of de Broglie's initial double solution and pilot wave theories, so that's a distinction without a difference.
Incorrect.
What I wrote is certainly correct; it is a clear matter of record that dBB theory evolved as I described. The paper you cited was a later one by de Broglie where he went back to the double solution, ultimately FAILING to pull together a successful theory (c.f. Ch. 7 in https://books.goo...=false). The statement that you cited is one of personal dogma by de Broglie, and isn't really consistent with the earlier quote about the postulated "subquantic medium" that serves as a source for the quantum force. Surely that must have "physical reality" to exert a force on the "real" particle in the theory. So it all boils down to inconsequential semantic gymnastics associated with an incomplete theory; you're better off with dBB.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2015
Occam's razor therefore argues there is a particle AND a wave in wave-particle duality.
Why?
If you can't ask where the particle physically exists during a double slit experiment you are not doing physics.
That is a statement of your personal dogma, which is contrary to the science of physics, where standard QM is an accepted theory.
If you think the particle exists in infinite worlds during a double slit experiment, which is untestable, then you are not doing physics.
Again, a statement of dogma; the differences in interpretation of MWI do not affect the (correct) predictions of the theory. Furthermore, the "internal" aspects of the pilot wave theory (i.e. the independent existence of a "real" particle and a "real" pilot wave) are just as untestable as the aspects of the the CI and MWI that you objected to above. In case you're tempted, I wouldn't bother referring to Double Solution again; it is not a complete or valid theory.

[ctd]
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2015
Occam's razor:

'Empty' space has mass which physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.
What? Occam's razor favors the SIMPLEST solution, not one that introduces a mythical aspect ("massive space") that is not NEEDED to explain observations. Furthermore, every attempt to measure the existence of an "aether" has met with failure, introducing an additional complexity (remember, Occam favors simplicity) that you need to explain why and how this mythical "massive space" hides behind the closet door when physicists try to measure it. And of course there are a whole bunch of more basic, logical objections to "massive space", such as how there can be no dispersion of energy (i.e. "friction-like" losses) when classical bodies move through it. So anyway, Occam's razor certainly doesn't help to rationalize "massive space".
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2015
What I wrote is certainly correct; it is a clear matter of record that dBB theory evolved as I described.


How you can have "de Broglie" as part of de Broglie-Bohm theory when de Broglie disagreed with it shows how screwed up mainstream physics is.

The statement that you cited is one of postulated "subquantic medium" that serves as a source for the quantum force.


Both quotes are from the same article and they are completely consistent. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.

The physical wave is a wave in the "subquantic medium".

Call it whatever you want, 'empty' space has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.
liquidspacetime
not rated yet Apr 02, 2015
That is a statement of your personal dogma, which is contrary to the science of physics, where standard QM is an accepted theory.


http://en.wikiped...retation

"The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless."

Saying where the particle PHYSICALLY exists in a double slit experiment prior to measuring it is meaningless is evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is.

Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
Occam's razor favors the SIMPLEST solution, not one that introduces a mythical aspect ("massive space") that is not NEEDED to explain observations.


'Empty' space having mass is needed in order to PHYSICALLY explain the PHYSICAL behaviors in a double slit experiment and the PHYSICAL geometrical effect referred to as the deformation of spacetime.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty' space.

The state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty' space is the deformation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime.

Either you are able to understand the Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime, or you are not. Which is it?
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
You referenced Couder's experiments, which seem to be a classical macroscopic manifestation of many predictions of pilot wave theory, i.e. dBB interpretation.


Yves Couder email response someone posted online:

"Hi,

Your question is excellent. We call a walker the ensemble of the droplet and its associated wave. ... In the double slit experiment, while the droplet passes through one slit the associated wave passes through both so that one coud say that the walker passes through both. ... These models are usually called de Broglie - Bohm models, a term that is very misleading because the two approaches are different from one another.
Bohm gets a dynamical equation from Shrödinger equation so that it concerns the dynamics of a maximum of probability. What de Broglie had in mind was a the dynamics of an individual particle associated with a wave.
Our system appears to be closer to de Broglie.

Best regards

Yves Couder"
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
How you can have "de Broglie" as part of de Broglie-Bohm theory when de Broglie disagreed with it
Because "pilot waves" were his original idea & dBB seems to be valid (so far), despite any objections he may have had. Did he object to use of his name?
Both quotes are from the same article and they are completely consistent. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.
As I said, this is pure semantics; the two waves you refer to are interchangeable, differing only by a scaling factor. The "realness" insisted upon by de Broglie is a postulate; a "singular region of high amplitude" representing the particle. See http://aflb.ensmp...001.pdf. But as I said, the double solution is (at best) incomplete, and thus not really worth discussing further.
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
That is a statement of your personal dogma, which is contrary to the science of physics, where standard QM is an accepted theory.


http://en.wikiped...retation

"The Copenhagen interpretation rejects questions like "where was the particle before I measured its position?" as meaningless."

Saying where the particle PHYSICALLY exists in a double slit experiment prior to measuring it is meaningless is evidence of how screwed up mainstream physics is.

Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?


I understand that YOU are not willing to eschew reality as part of a physical theory. That, as I said, amounts to dogma. Objectively, standard QM has been proved consistent with all experimental tests to date. The only "issues" with the theory are interpretational ones concerning what happens "behind the scenes".
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Occam's razor favors the SIMPLEST solution, not one that introduces a mythical aspect ("massive space") that is not NEEDED to explain observations.


'Empty' space having mass is needed in order to PHYSICALLY explain the PHYSICAL behaviors in a double slit experiment and the PHYSICAL geometrical effect referred to as the deformation of spacetime.

In a double slit experiment it is the mass which fills 'empty' space that waves.

The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty' space.

The state of displacement of the mass which fills 'empty' space is the deformation of spacetime.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime.

Either you are able to understand the Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime, or you are not. Which is it?

This is just more of your personal dogma. Unless there is an experimental result that validates your interpretation over the standard one, who cares?
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
You referenced Couder's experiments, which seem to be a classical macroscopic manifestation of many predictions of pilot wave theory, i.e. dBB interpretation.
Yves Couder email response

"Hi, Your question is excellent. We call a walker the ensemble of the droplet and its associated wave .. In the double slit experiment, while the droplet passes through one slit the associated wave passes through both so that one coud say that the walker passes through both ..These models are usually called de Broglie - Bohm models, a term that is very misleading because the two approaches are different from one another. Bohm gets a dynamical equation from Shrödinger equation so that it concerns the dynamics of a maximum of probability. What de Broglie had in mind was a the dynamics of an individual particle associated with a wave. Our system appears to be closer to de Broglie."

Ok, so that's his opinion. I would say it involves a mischaracterization of dBB. What's your point?
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Just as a follow up. Bell's theorem proves that any theory that can reproduce the predictions of standard QM must either give up locality or reality. Standard QM is local, but the nature of the wavefunction (prior to any interaction that can be considered a measurement) has no physical significance; i.e. standard QM gives up reality. Bohmian mechanics (dBB) is real, but also includes explicit non-locality in the definition of the pilot-wave. For example, dBB rationalizes the result of the double slit experiment as arising from the non-local interaction of the pilot wave with the double-slit to determine the allowable trajectories of the particle (and their relative probabilities). The particular trajectory followed by a given particle is determined in part (through the quantum potential) by initial conditions that are fundamentally unknowable, which is how dBB (which is deterministic) reproduces the probabilistic results of measurements.
liquidspacetime
not rated yet Apr 02, 2015
As I said, this is pure semantics; the two waves you refer to are interchangeable


Of course not. One wave is real and one is fictitious.

"But the [wave function] wave usually employed in Wave Mechanics cannot be a physical reality; its normalization is arbitrary; its propagation, in the general case, is supposed to take place in an obviously fictitious configuration space, and the success of its probabilistic interpretation shows clearly that it is merely a representation of probabilities dependent upon the state of our knowledge and suddenly modified by every new piece of information. So I saw clearly that the pilot-wave theory could not supply the interpretation I sought; it did not achieve the clearcut separation of the objective and subjective, which had been give up by Bohr and his disciples, but which it was necessary to maintain if I was to arrive at a concrete and causal interpretation of Wave Mechanics."
liquidspacetime
not rated yet Apr 02, 2015
I understand that YOU are not willing to eschew reality as part of a physical theory. That, as I said, amounts to dogma. Objectively, standard QM has been proved consistent with all experimental tests to date. The only "issues" with the theory are interpretational ones concerning what happens "behind the scenes".


Are you able to understand in a boat double slit experiment the boat travels through a single slit even when you close your eyes?
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2015
This is just more of your personal dogma. Unless there is an experimental result that validates your interpretation over the standard one, who cares?


The state of mainstream physics where no one cares to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature.

The Milky Way's halo *is* the deformation of spacetime whether you care to understand it, or not.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015

Ok, so that's his opinion. I would say it involves a mischaracterization of dBB. What's your point?


It involves your mischaracterization of de Broglie's double solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the fictitious wave-function wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.

This is different than Bohmian mechanics where there is only the wave-function/pilot wave.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
Bell's theorem ... Bohmian mechanics (dBB) is real ...


I am not discussing dBB. I am discussing de Broglie's double solution theory.

"While the founding fathers agonized over the question 'particle' or 'wave', de Broglie in 1925 proposed the obvious answer 'particle' and 'wave'. Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they cooperate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored." - Bell
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
What's your point?
It involves your mischaracterization of de Broglie's double solution theory. In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the fictitious wave-function wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.
No. Read the link I posted for you (a paper by de Broglie himself), specifically section VII "Introduction of the statistical psi wave". In that section he shows explicitly that psi and v (the "real" wave) differ only by a scaling factor ... how does a scaling factor turn the wave from real to fictitious?
This is different than Bohmian mechanics where there is only the wave-function/pilot wave.
Only in a semantic sense, as I have pointed out several times now. The real difference is that de Broglie tried to *describe* the "particle" as part of the double solution "real" wave, v; this is also described qualitatively in that link I posted.
liquidspacetime
3 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2015
No. Read the link I posted for you (a paper by de Broglie himself), specifically section VII "Introduction of the statistical psi wave". In that section he shows explicitly that psi and v (the "real" wave) differ only by a scaling factor ...


I'm discussing physical reality. Not mathematical constructs.

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'
http://aflb.ensmp...p001.pdf

"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
Bell's theorem ... Bohmian mechanics (dBB) is real ...


I am not discussing dBB. I am discussing de Broglie's double solution theory


Why? It's not a complete or valid theory .. you cannot use it to make predictions. It's just a proto-theory based around the same essential math as dBB with some semantic differences. If you think differently, please give the double solution model of the H-atom.

It's clear that de Broglie was trying to make the double solution explicitly relativistic, which would have been great, since dBB has issues in that area (it requires a preferred foliation of space-time, which is at least superficially inconsistent with relativity). However,among other things, the inherent non-linearity of his soliton-like, high-amplitude regions precluded him from ever completing the theory, and no one else has been able to do so since.
DarkLordKelvin
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2015
No. Read the link I posted for you (a paper by de Broglie himself), specifically section VII "Introduction of the statistical psi wave". In that section he shows explicitly that psi and v (the "real" wave) differ only by a scaling factor ...
I'm discussing physical reality. Not mathematical constructs.
Now you're just indulging in sophistry. I posted de Broglie's own "last words" about double solution theory .. the thing YOU referenced. How can you ignore what is contained therein?
"When in 1923-1924 I had my first ideas about Wave Mechanics I was looking for a truly concrete physical image, valid for all particles, of the wave and particle coexistence discovered by Albert Einstein in his "Theory of light quanta". I had no doubt whatsoever about the physical reality of waves and particles."
Yep, that's from the link I posted, and it's a statement of dogma from de Broglie. He is also careful to say at the end that this belief has not yet been validated.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
Why?


NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

"the interaction of the particle with a "subquantic medium" which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic"

The "subquantic medium" is the aether.

'Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy'
http://newsoffice...ics-0912

"The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. ..."

A "fluidic pilot-wave system" is the aether.

'When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics'
http://www.scienc...1934.htm

"Suppose these guys ... actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That's what I find exciting ..."

In a double slit experiment it is the aether that waves.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
I posted de Broglie's own "last words" .. How can you ignore what is contained therein?


I posted de Broglie's own "last words" about his double solution theory. How can you ignore them?

"But the [wave function] wave usually employed in Wave Mechanics cannot be a physical reality; its normalization is arbitrary; its propagation, in the general case, is supposed to take place in an obviously fictitious configuration space, and the success of its probabilistic interpretation shows clearly that it is merely a representation of probabilities dependent upon the state of our knowledge and suddenly modified by every new piece of information. So I saw clearly that the pilot-wave theory could not supply the interpretation I sought; it did not achieve the clearcut separation of the objective and subjective, which had been give up by Bohr and his disciples, but which it was necessary to maintain if I was to arrive at a concrete and causal interpretation of Wave Mechanics."
Dethe
1 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2015
In de Broglie's double solution theory there are two waves. There is the physical wave which guides the particle and the fictitious wave-function wave which is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.
Unfortunately it's not true, the double solution theory deals with two independent wave functions, each of them has its probability function assigned. Probability function is not wave function and these two functions exist even in fully classical Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and they're mutually dependent each other via Hamiltonian. The double solution theory is about something different, which has its consequences for example here.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2015
Unfortunately it's not true, the double solution theory deals with two independent wave functions, each of them has its probability function assigned. Probability function is not wave function and http://i.imgur.com/Gwt0D26.gif.


de Broglie's double solution theory is about the physical wave in a "subquantic medium" which guides the particle and the associated wave-function wave which is statistical, non-physical and is used to determine the probabilistic results of experiments.
jalmy
1 / 5 (1) May 15, 2015
Dark matter = Anti-matter
Anti-matter = Anti-Gravity

The End
Tuxford
3 / 5 (2) May 18, 2015
The state of mainstream physics where no one cares to correctly understand what occurs physically in nature.

What is the physical mechanism that produces the effects of a field or a force? Without answering this question, physics is just playing with math that mimics nature.

LaViolette's SubQuantum Kinectics model answers this question. However, it is not accurate to state that the underlying medium has mass. Mass is a characteristic of our universe, and not necessarily of the underlying medium. Particles behave in a certain way displaying this mass characteristic. But the underlying diffusive medium simply is the ocean of interacting invisible 'elementals' that interact, transforming forming into other 'elementals', like a wildfire burning through a forest. The propagating reaction changes the relative local distribution of the various types of 'elementals'. It is this changing distribution in the ocean that is the wave propagating in advance of the 'particle' fire.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.