New theory—If we want to detect dark matter we might need a different approach

August 20, 2015
New theory: If we want to detect dark matter we might need a different approach
The Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment is placed in this former mine almost 1500 m underground in South Dakota, USA. Credit: Matt Kapust, Sanford Underground Research Facility.

Physicists suggest a new way to look for dark matter: They believe that dark matter particles annihilate into so-called dark radiation when they collide. If true, then we should be able to detect the signals from this radiation.

The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is precisely measured. In other words: Physicists know it is out there, but they have not yet detected it.

It is definitely worth looking for, argues Ian Shoemaker, former postdoctoral researcher at Centre for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP3), Department of Physics, Chemistry and Pharmacy, University of Southern Denmark, now at Penn State, USA.

"There is no way of predicting what we can do with dark matter, if we detect it. But it might revolutionize our world. When scientists discovered quantum mechanics, it was considered a curiosity. Today, quantum mechanics plays an important role in computers," he says.

Ever since dark matter was first theorized, there have been many attempts to look for it, and now Ian Shoemaker and fellow scientists, Associate Professor Mads Toudal Frandsen, CP3, and John F. Cherry, from Los Alamos National Laboratory, USA, suggest a new approach. They present their work in the journal Physical Review Letters.

Look in underground caves

On Earth, several detectors are located in underground cavities, where disturbing noise is minimized. The hope is that one of these detectors will one day catch a passing through Earth.

According to Ian Shoemaker, it is possible that this might happen, but given how little we know about dark matter, we should keep an open mind and explore all paths that could lead to its detection.

New theory: If we want to detect dark matter we might need a different approach
The LUX detector. Credit: Matt Kapust, Sanford Underground Research Facility.

One reason for this is that dark matter is not very dense in our part of the universe.

"If we add another way of looking for dark matter, then we will increase our chances of detecting dark matter in our underground cavities", says Shoemaker.

He and his colleagues now suggest looking for the signs of dark matter activity rather than the dark themselves.

The researchers believe that when two dark matter particles meet, they will behave just like ordinary particles; that they will annihilate and create radiation in the process. In this case, the radiation is called dark radiation, and it may be detected by the existing underground detectors.

"Underground detection experiments may be able to detect the signals created by dark radiation", Shoemaker says.

The researchers have found that the Large Underground Xenon (LUX) experiment is, in fact, already sensitive to this signal and can, with future data, confirm or exclude their hypothesis for dark matter's origin.

Don't forget to look in the Milky Way, too

The attempt to catch signals from dark radiation is not a new idea—it is currently being performed in several regions in space via satellite-based experiments. These places include the center of our galaxy, the Milky Way, and the sun is another possible location.

"It makes sense to look for dark radiation in certain places in space, where we expect it to be very dense—a lot denser than on Earth", explains Shoemaker, adding, "If there is an abundance of dark matter in these areas, then we would expect it to annihilate and create radiation."

None of the satellite-based experiments however have yet detected dark radiation. According to Shoemaker, Frandsen and Cherry, this could be because the experiments look for the wrong signals.

"The traditional satellite-based experiments search for photons, because they expect dark matter to annihilate into photons. But if dark matter annihilates into dark radiation, then these satellite-based experiments are hopeless."

In the early days of the universe, when all matter was still extremely dense, dark matter may have collided and annihilated into radiation all the time. This happened to as well, so it is not unlikely that dark matter behaves the same way, the researchers argue.

How to find dark matter

Physicists have three ways to try and detect dark matter:

  • Make it: Slam matter together and produce dark matter. This has been tried at high-energy particle colliders, the most famous of which is CERN's Large Hadron Collider (LHC) in Geneva, Switzerland. So far, no success.
  • Break it: This is the "annihilation" process in which two dark matter particles meet and produce some sort of radiation. This can happen whenever dark matter is dense enough so that the probability of two dark matter particles colliding is sufficiently high. So far no success.
  • Wait for it: Set up detectors and wait for them to catch particles or signs of them. So far no success.

Explore further: Physicists suggest new way to detect dark matter

More information: Direct Detection Phenomenology in Models Where the Products of Dark Matter Annihilation Interact with Nuclei, John F. Cherry, Mads T. Frandsen, and Ian M. Shoemaker. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 231303.

Related Stories

Physicists suggest new way to detect dark matter

November 18, 2014

For years physicists have been looking for the universe's elusive dark matter, but so far no one has seen any trace of it. Maybe we are looking in the wrong place? Now physicists from University of Southern Denmark propose ...

On the hunt for dark matter

August 22, 2014

New University of Adelaide Future Fellow Dr Martin White is starting a research project that has the potential to redirect the experiments of thousands of physicists around the world who are trying to identify the nature ...

The dark side of cosmology

March 6, 2015

It's a beautiful theory: the standard model of cosmology describes the universe using just six parameters. But it is also strange. The model predicts that dark matter and dark energy – two mysterious entities that have ...

Video: Hunting for the WIMPs of the universe

April 28, 2015

Dark matter is a scientific mystery. We can't see or touch it. But physicists like Dan McKinsey theorize it must exist because, without it, the universe would look quite different.

Recommended for you

Quantum thermometer or optical refrigerator?

June 22, 2017

In an arranged marriage of optics and mechanics, physicists have created microscopic structural beams that have a variety of powerful uses when light strikes them. Able to operate in ordinary, room-temperature environments, ...

Ultra-thin camera creates images without lenses

June 22, 2017

Traditional cameras—even those on the thinnest of cell phones—cannot be truly flat due to their optics: lenses that require a certain shape and size in order to function. At Caltech, engineers have developed a new camera ...

Problem of wheeled suitcases wobbling explained

June 21, 2017

(Phys.org)—A team of researchers at Universite Paris-Diderot has uncovered the reason for wobbling of wheeled suitcases. In their paper published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, the group explains the physics behind ...

191 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

arpotu
1 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
We should look for evidence of dark matter black holes. Once found, we observe the relativistic jets to see what radiation/particles are being produced.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 20, 2015
We should look for evidence of dark matter black holes.

Black holes are characterized by mass, angular momentum and charge. This wouldn't be different for dark matter black holes - so you couldn't tell them apart from 'normal' ones.
The jets also would look the same as they are not emanated from the black hole but produced by processes close to the event horizon.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2015
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn....nd-voids

"Dark matter ... permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailyg...ce-.html

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter, creating a wave in the dark matter.

In a double slit experiment the dark matter waves.
Doug_Huffman
3 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
The Standard Models are unfalsifiable ad-hockery.
docile
Aug 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
verkle
Aug 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tadchem
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
Dark matter *does* have mass. We can detect its gravitational effect on visible matter that also has mass. When you think about it, we detect almost everything because of its effects on other things.
What dark matter does not have is an emission or absorption spectrum. So far, everything we know that absorbs or emits light consists of oppositely charged particles that interact through electromagnetism AND transfer of angular momentum.
If, for example, there were a state of a hydrogen atom that could not simultaneously change energy and angular momentum that atom would be quantum mechanically "dark".
N = 1/2?
bschott
2.3 / 5 (11) Aug 20, 2015
The Standard Models are unfalsifiable ad-hockery.


Agreed.

The majority of the mass in the universe remains unknown. Despite knowing very little about dark matter, its overall abundance is precisely measured.


An example.

So far, no success.


Repeated four times, gotta be gettin' used to it by now.

We can detect its gravitational effect on visible matter that also has mass.


Bullshit. You can insert it into a failing model of galactic scale where it is required to "repair" the model so that it matches observation. That doesn't actually make it exist and that doesn't mean that making the observation verifies that it is there.

It just means that the model is so far off reality that it requires a 3 to 1 ratio of invisible matter for the math, the theory, and the gravity model to remain valid.

And you wonder why intelligent people who study all aspects of physics don't buy in. There's a lot more to it than just math kids.

bla
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2015
Physicists know it is out there, but they have not yet detected it....


What classical nonsense. This is blind faith if I have ever seen it.
If we have not detected it, then NO, we don't know it is out there.



Of course we don't. The only things we know is that something is wrong in galaxy dynamics, and that most modified theories of gravity constructed so far with the motivation of solving this, have been severely constrained by binary pulsar systems and other astrophysical observations, leading to unnatural (or even non-physical) fine-tuned theories. It does seem to behave like some weird kind of matter tough (based on the information we could collect so far, which includes the density profile of the effect from the galactic centre to the outer layers). The sentence doesn't sound that problematic to me!
Benni
2.2 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
It just means that the model is so far off reality that it requires a 3 to 1 ratio of invisible matter for the math, the theory, and the gravity model to remain valid.


Hey b, we should just keep it between you & I that the basic particle from which everything in the Universe is made has been discovered, you know, that Higgs thingy thing, Just imagine the disillusionment that is likely to set in when the DM Enthusiasts learn the HB was isolated absent evidence of DM.

bla
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015


Hey b, we should just keep it between you & I that the basic particle from which everything in the Universe is made has been discovered, you know, that Higgs thingy thing, Just imagine the disillusionment that is likely to set in when the DM Enthusiasts learn the HB was isolated absent evidence of DM.



You didn't understand what the Higgs boson is, Benni. Giving mass to other particles is not the same thing as 'making' other particles. There are many other ingredients, such as electrical charge, spin, colour, flavour for neutrinos...
mytwocts
3.2 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
Hey, "bschott" and "bullshit" sound practically the same !
Benni "Bullshit" Schott perhaps?
mytwocts
3.3 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2015
On a more serious note [Troll on ignore mode on]
If DM only couples tow gravity, then the result of annihilation will be a pair of gravitons.
Two coincident gravitons then will have to be determined.
So I guess the hope is for some other coupling and a shower of particles with an annihilation signature.
bla
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2015

If DM only couples tow gravity, then the result of annihilation will be a pair of gravitons.
Two coincident gravitons then will have to be determined.
So I guess the hope is for some other coupling and a shower of particles with an annihilation signature.


I don't follow you, mytwocts. In order for gravitons pairs to be formed as a product of annihilation of DM, you would need it to couple to the space-time quantum structure, whatever that is; the idea of DM is that being massive particles, you will feel the gravitational effect, regardless of whether it couples minimally to space-time or has a more complicated coupling (like all other matter). I'm not by any means an expert in DM, but as far as I understand, the interest in as turned from wimps to axions, and axions are particles which interact a lot with the strong force, and have mass (should be very high), but don't interact with the weak or EM forces.
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (12) Aug 20, 2015
verkle stated (out of the mouths of babies)
If we have not detected it, then NO, we don't know it is out there
LOL !

What immense hypocrisy - how did you apply this to the claim of moses, jesus, mohammed, joseph smith, L Ron Hubbard etc ?

ie ALL have failed, all have NEVER been detected, have they ? all ONLY claimed in a simple book !

verkle, how in hell does your deity of moses communicate ANY different than ANY others ?

Why verkle, don't you or can't you answer ANY of these KEY issues re your banal proselytizing ?

Show us PLEASE verkle what is the very best god-like method how YOUR god communicates ?

AND

WHY verkle, does YOUR deity appear exactly like angry punishing Devil that CANNOT care ?

Heard of education verkle, isnt that the basic tenet of a parent, would you punish all children of your daugher because your daughter was setup to fail.

IOW: Your god is a LIAR, A CHEAT or an IDIOT or Insane OR doesnt exist !

Which is most likely ?

Logic ?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2015
You didn't understand what the Higgs boson is, Benni. Giving mass to other particles is not the same thing as 'making' other particles. There are many other ingredients, such as electrical charge, spin, colour, flavour for neutrinos...


Ohhh, but you're the one of little comprehension here. The Higgs Boson is the fundamental particle from which all other particles have their origin. It is the foundation particle without which nothing else exists. No HB, no neutrinos, no electrons, no neutrons, etc, & thus no electrical charge, spin, flavours & or any other descriptive characteristic you impart to everything else known to be built on the HB Foundation.

The discovery of the HB precludes any possibility that anything in the Universe can hide itself, but you don't understand why do you? Nothing DARK can exist if it is built on a foundation of detectable/observable visible matter, that's the HB.
baudrunner
2.3 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
"The traditional satellite-based experiments search for photons, because they expect dark matter to annihilate into photons. But if dark matter annihilates into dark radiation, then these satellite-based experiments are hopeless."
That is, like, a real dumb thing to say, which proves that DM is just a lot of BS. Radiation is radiation, and if we don't detect it, then it simply doesn't exist.
docile
Aug 20, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2015
The Higgs Boson is the fundamental particle from which all other particles have their origin. It is the foundation particle without which nothing else exists. No HB, no neutrinos, no electrons, no neutrons, etc, & thus no electrical charge, spin, flavours & or any other descriptive characteristic you impart to everything else known to be built on the HB Foundation
LOL, how did you come into it?


There is this facility located in Cern, Switzerland. It's known as the Hadron Collider. A short time back they found the particle for which is the foundation on which they claim all other particles are built. As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer myself, I believe what I see written in their reports.

Everything that has a Higgs Boson as the foundation for its existence what is called "Visible Matter". Who here can prove the existence of something that is not built from the foundation of the HB? And can you do it without any name calling?
bluehigh
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 20, 2015
Dark Radiation?

"We explore the feasibility and astrophysical consequences of a new long-range U(1) gauge field ("dark electromagnetism") that couples only to dark matter, not to the Standard Model."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5126

Porgie
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2015
There is no dark matter. The gravity shifts are dimensional anomalies. There are interdimensional phenomena that cause the gravity spikes, not some phony matter that can't be detected.
Nik_2213
3 / 5 (1) Aug 20, 2015
Must wonder if 'Dark Matter' isn't showing up in our experiments because it's been blown out of the 'Local Bubble'...
https://en.wikipe...l_Bubble
Mimath224
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 20, 2015
Mike_Massen, antialias_physorg etc. I am a bit confused here so perhaps you can help me out. I think it's generally agreed that we don't know what DM is and research is continuing. Yes we can observe what is happening in cosmos and infer this & that (leaving that part for others to argue). It's the part about observing what happens at some underground station when a DM particle does have some interaction. The article also agrees that DM is not dense in our vicinity. Comparing to neutrino research where great numbers pass through the Earth from the Sun's reactions etc yet recorded interactions are few. If that's the case for particles we know about how will researches know that they have recorded a DM particle if they don't interact with (ordinary) matter and there is less of them around'here'. Please correct me if I've overlooked some important point but I hope you can appreciate my confusion. Thanks in advance.
bla
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2015

Ohhh, but you're the one of little comprehension here. The Higgs Boson is the fundamental particle from which all other particles have their origin. It is the foundation particle without which nothing else exists. No HB, no neutrinos, no electrons, no neutrons, etc, & thus no electrical charge, spin, flavours & or any other descriptive characteristic you impart to everything else known to be built on the HB Foundation.


Benni...that's what's called crackpotery. Read the original paper by Higgs, which is actually very easy to follow (the theory is beautifully simple, the mechanism very simply from the Landau-Guinsburg functional). As I said, you didn't understand at all what the Higgs boson is, and from your later reply, you didn't even understand the problem it addressed and solved.
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015

The discovery of the HB precludes any possibility that anything in the Universe can hide itself, but you don't understand why do you? Nothing DARK can exist if it is built on a foundation of detectable/observable visible matter, that's the HB.


I'm a theoretical physicist myself, so I believe that if what you say makes any sense, you can very easily explain it to me and help me understanding your logic. Please, do it :)


There is this facility located in Cern, Switzerland. It's known as the Hadron Collider. A short time back they found the particle for which is the foundation on which they claim all other particles are built. As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer myself, I believe what I see written in their reports.


Benni, I really don't think you have read any of the papers or reports by any LHC team, because what you've said is neither compatible with the theory, nor supported by any LHC result.
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
There is no dark matter. The gravity shifts are dimensional anomalies. There are interdimensional phenomena that cause the gravity spikes, not some phony matter that can't be detected.


Porgie, to any energy scale tested so far (i.e. up to HESS cosmic rays energy, which is larger than LHC), there are no dependence between dimensions in space-time - Minkowski still does the job. From pulsar binary systems, we can see that in strongly curved backgrounds, such dependences are not either present. Could you enlighten us about your model and why we don't see any such break of symmetries in low nor high energies, and neither in weak nor strong gravity?
TimLong2001
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Yeah, try finding out why photons lose energy as they travel across spces, resulting in a background red shift.
rossim22
1.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
These astronomers need to take one more step back, they're still accepting dark matter theory as a fact.

If we want to understand galaxy formation we might need a different approach.
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
@Mimath224

It's the part about observing what happens at some underground station when a DM particle does have some interaction. (...) If that's the case for particles we know about how will researches know that they have recorded a DM particle if they don't interact with (ordinary) matter and there is less of them around'here'. Please correct me if I've overlooked some important point but I hope you can appreciate my confusion. Thanks in advance.


Mimath, I'm not by any means an expert in the topic of DM, but from my understanding, these experiences are designed to test and constrain specific families of models for DM, such as Wimps (these are models in which DM is a massive particle which interacts with the weak nuclear force) and Axions (in which DM is a massive particle hypothetically proposed back in the sixties to solve the CP violation on the strong nuclear force). If you found what you theorized, you solved it, otherwise, I believe you get nothing out of it.
RobertKarlStonjek
2.8 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2015
Physicists know it is out there, but they have not yet detected it.


Religionists "know it (God, spirits, angels) is out there, but they have not yet detected it."

Physicists don't *know* it is out there, they **believe** it is out there, they have faith, like those who believed in the failed SUSY theories and its non-existent particle underpinning.

What we *do* know is that the existence of the Dark Matter particle is one solution to known and measured observational anomalies. We know that for sure. Using the measure of scientific empiricism, that is all we 'know'. The rest is scientific hypothesis or, if we know it without empirical evidence, philosophy or religion.
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
Yeah, try finding out why photons lose energy as they travel across spces, resulting in a background red shift.


You know, Tim, that was actually explained exactly 100 years ago :)!
(Ok, 100 years ago was just the seed, when Einstein published the final version of general relativity, but the answer for that question was actually explained by it beautifully as soon as Hubble showed that result).
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
These astronomers need to take one more step back, they're still accepting dark matter theory as a fact.

If we want to understand galaxy formation we might need a different approach.


But Rossim, there are physicists coming up with different ways of approaching the observations, including alternative theories of gravity! In science, people have to try everything, which means that in this case, people have to try all approaches including the possibility of matter which doesn't interact electromagnetically. Besides, dark matter (or whatever the heck it is) is needed for more that galaxy formation, it's also needed to explain galaxy rotation profiles and galaxy density profiles.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (12) Aug 21, 2015
Physicists don't *know* it is out there, they **believe** it is out there, they have faith, like those who believed in the failed SUSY theories and its non-existent particle underpinning.
No, this is incorrect. They know something is out there, because (as you go on to correctly point out) there are observational anomalies, and these aren't minor anomalies, they're great big glaring ones. No "**believe**" about it. No "faith" required.

Whether it turns out to be new particles or some other sort of new physics remains to be seen, but physicists *know* there's something there. It's not a belief, it's not faith, and it has nothing to do with religion and never did.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
What is the difference between dark radiation and the regular kind?
flag
not rated yet Aug 21, 2015
LHC Dark Matter Experiments
https://www.acade...eriments
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
There is evidence of dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed; it's what waves.

'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn....nd-voids

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."

Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter, creating a wave in the dark matter.

In a double slit experiment the dark matter waves.
Right. So-called empty space is filled with dark energy. What we're seeing is the distribution of this energy in intergalactic space - about 70% of the total energy of the universe.
theon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
More of the same, we've seen this for 30 years
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
@bla, thanks and yes I understand you. I was just trying to do a bit of 'reverse' thinking (obviously need more practice,Ha). That is 'looking for the haystack and not the needle' as it were, the needle being more dense than hay. Won't go on with that but I'm just comparing hay with the needle.If as I understand it to be, DM is lacks even distribution should we not be looking for a particle that promotes this rather than other particles or radiation that move fast, that is tend to spread rather than congregate once released. However that might involve what you mentioned, the strong N force, since qu & gl would fit. I just wonder if there might be a particle with a 5qu arrangement being stable (proton) massive like the mesons. Just 'armchair' thinking that's all.
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
Dark Radiation?

"We explore the feasibility and astrophysical consequences of a new long-range U(1) gauge field ("dark electromagnetism") that couples only to dark matter, not to the Standard Model."

http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.5126


The we need a detector made out of DM to detect it. This looks like a silly hypothesis.
mytwocts
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015

The discovery of the HB precludes any possibility that anything in the Universe can hide itself, but you don't understand why do you? Nothing DARK can exist if it is built on a foundation of detectable/observable visible matter, that's the HB.


I'm a theoretical physicist myself, so I believe that if what you say makes any sense, you can very easily explain it to me and help me understanding your logic. Please, do it :)


There is this facility located in Cern, Switzerland. It's known as the Hadron Collider. A short time back they found the particle for which is the foundation on which they claim all other particles are built. As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer myself, I believe what I see written in their reports.


Benni, I really don't think you have read any of the papers or reports by any LHC team, because what you've said is neither compatible with the theory, nor supported by any LHC result.

My advice: put him on ignore.
Egleton
not rated yet Aug 21, 2015
I wouldn't be surprised if dark matter turned out to be a kludge in order to allow for our observed reality.
In which case it needs no rational explanation. It just has to Be. Like gravity.
I've tried to make sense of the Higgs, but was hit by a wall of rules. Rules and models are a left brain phenomenon. And that hemisphere is blind to it's limitations. It will just make things up on the fly.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
@Seeker2 In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves. The ability of the dark matter to wave is energy.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
@Seeker2 In a double slit experiment it is the dark matter that waves. The ability of the dark matter to wave is energy.
Dark matter is the gradient of dark energy.
bschott
1.4 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2015
I'm a theoretical physicist myself, so I believe that if what you say makes any sense, you can very easily explain it to me and help me understanding your logic. Please, do it :)


Since small change thinks I'm Benni, I can do this quite easily because his logic is not hard to follow at all.

Because it is theorized that the Higgs boson couples to the Higgs field and it is this coupling that is theorized to bring mass to all particles (still love to hear the mechanics of this so as you are a physicist...I'm all ears), and we detected the Higgs at CERN, via a frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum, dark "matter" would also have to have, as one of it's building blocks, a Higgs boson. Which means it would have to have an EM component....

Dark "matter" must have a mass component, but has no EM signature, (impossible if it is housing a Higgs Boson) it would have to exist outside of current physics.

docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
Dark matter is the gradient of dark energy.


Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet. Our Universe is a larger version of the following artists image of a galactic polar jet:

http://discoverma...3015.jpg

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
Dark matter is the gradient of dark energy.
I lied. Actually there is no dark matter, only what you might call dark gravity. Dark gravity is the gradient of dark energy. For more see https://www.faceb...44687359
swordsman
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Dark matter exists everywhere, since space has the same electromagnetic characteristics. Why look toward the center of the earth? Groping at straws.
bschott
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
the photons have "EM signature", yet they're believed to have no mass component,


By who? It's called Radiation pressure.....

Most probable explanation is, the dark matter particles have magnetic signature only,


If it were particles with only a magnetic signature it couldn't remain in the theorized "Halo" and would attract or repel SA particles.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Aug 21, 2015
Dark gravity is the gradient of dark energy.


Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

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

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark matter *is* gravity.
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
Benni claims
As a Nuclear/Electrical Engineer myself, I believe what I see written in their reports
Benni, you don't write consistent with how trained Nuclear or Electrical Engineers craft, respond or communicate issues & you are very thin on math

With your flair for claiming others can't do differential equations (DE) implying you can, why havent you answered my question as to why you cannot address this DE
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Benni claims
Everything that has a Higgs Boson as the foundation for its existence what is called "Visible Matter"
Your wording comes across rather oddly, so please indicate how it fits re the DE's of the core of the standard model ie:-
http://www.quora....f-nature

Especially the answer by Viktor Toth

Benni, where & when did you get that claimed nuclear/electrical engineering degree ?
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Dark gravity is the gradient of dark energy.
Actually all forms of gravity are gradients of the pressure of dark energy. Visible matter displaces the dark energy so bodies of matter have a lower dark energy pressure. This is why we feel gravity. OBTW while we're speculating let's say dark energy is the accumulated vacuum energy since the big bang.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter move through and displace the dark matter, including 'particles' as large as galaxies and galaxy clusters.
Best thinking I've heard on this topic. Dark energy is the state of excitation of spacetime. Visible matter has quantized e=mc*2 energy, and this displaces the pressure of dark energy.

liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
Visible matter displaces the dark energy


Visible matter displaces the dark matter. The state of displacement of the dark matter is the pressure associated with gravity.

The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

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

The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.

The state of displacement of the dark matter *is* gravity.

Dark energy is the state of excitation of spacetime. Visible matter has quantized e=mc*2 energy, and this displaces the pressure of dark energy.


Particles of matter are condensations of dark matter. When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into dark matter. The physical effects caused by the matter as it expands into dark matter is energy. Mass is conserved.
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
Visible matter displaces the dark energy
Can't believe I said that. The energy of visible matter displaces the dark energy. If you included dark energy in with the internal energy of visible matter then e=mc*2 would no longer hold. Accounting 101. So any region of space with mass has less dark energy density than a region without mass. So bodies with less mass get pushed into heavier objects such as black holes.
bla
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2015
@Mimath224

If as I understand it to be, DM is lacks even distribution should we not be looking for a particle that promotes this rather than other particles or radiation that move fast, that is tend to spread rather than congregate once released.(...) I just wonder if there might be a particle with a 5qu arrangement being stable (proton) massive like the mesons. Just 'armchair' thinking that's all.


Honestly, with my little knowledge on the topic, any serious answer would be as speculative as yours. What I can say is that the pentaquark you've mentioned (I think that's what you mean by 5qu arragement, right?) as been detected this year at LHC, by I think that it is not stable at lower energies, and it doesn't seem to make a good candidate for DM. The most interesting model I read recently can be found in PRL 115, 021301, and is based on pions (we know about the existence of these particles). But of course, it can still be anything for what we know.
bla
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2015

Because it is theorized that the Higgs boson couples to the Higgs field and it is this coupling that is theorized to bring mass to all particles (still love to hear the mechanics of this so as you are a physicist...I'm all ears), and we detected the Higgs at CERN, via a frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum, dark "matter" would also have to have, as one of it's building blocks, a Higgs boson. Which means it would have to have an EM component....


Bschott, an Higgs boson is a messenger of the Higgs field, like photons are messengers of EM interaction, gluons are messengers of the strong interaction, or W and Z are messengers of the weak interaction. Charged particles will radiate photons as they move on an EM field do to backreaction, but it doesn't mean that the photon is a building block of an electron. The Higgs boson is not a building block of massive matter, instead, matter gain mass due to its interaction with the Higgs boson.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
The energy of visible matter displaces the dark energy.


'Empty' space has mass. Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter exist in and displacement the dark matter.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2015
There is structured vacuum which filled cosmic space and divine matrix controlled by God will. This medium make possible the interactions of consituent particles of matter and control their behavior localy or globaly.

Fictional dark matter, energy and black holes are connected with dark cult.
rpaul_bauman
1 / 5 (5) Aug 21, 2015
If you go to the University of Southern Denmark and are in physics, ask for a refund of your TUITION. And make a note of this author.
baudrunner
3.3 / 5 (3) Aug 21, 2015
The Higgs Boson is the fundamental particle from which all other particles have their origin. It is the foundation particle without which nothing else exists. No HB, no neutrinos, no electrons, no neutrons, etc, & thus no electrical charge, spin, flavours & or any other descriptive characteristic you impart to everything else known to be built on the HB Foundation.
Rubbish! The Higgs boson is just another intermediate vector boson, and there's nothing special about it. What makes it notable, and which is why he receives the accolades, is that Higgs mathematically and correctly predicted the energy input required to produce this ultra short-lived energy bundle based on our knowledge of The Standard Model. Note that the Higgs is not stable. It doesn't hang around for longer than a few hundred billionths of a billionth of a second, just like the W and Z particles.
docile
Aug 21, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
What is the difference between dark radiation and the regular kind?
If it were to exist, "dark radiation" would be a type of radiation emitted from interactions of hypothesized "dark matter particles" that does not interact with normal matter or radiation and thus cannot be detected any more than dark matter can. It's very doubtful since in the 13 billion some-odd years dark matter has existed it doesn't seem to have reduced the effects of dark matter on galactic dynamics.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Aug 21, 2015
@bla:

Welcome in!
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 21, 2015
The energy of visible matter displaces the dark energy.


'Empty' space has mass. Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter exist in and displacement the dark matter.
Not really per http://www.newsci...oss.html
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The state of displacement of the dark matter is the pressure associated with gravity.
Close. The curvature of spacetime is the pressure associated with gradients of the dark energy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
The lopsided halo is due to asymmetries in the pressure of gradients in the dark energy, or asymmetries in the curvature of spacetime, however you wish to look at it.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The Milky Way's halo is curved spacetime.
YES!!!
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The state of displacement of the dark matter is curved spacetime.
Curved spacetime is due to asymmetries in the pressure gradients of dark energy. Spacetime is not dark matter. Other than spacetime, the only thing that is displaced is dark energy in the presence of visible matter.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
''Empty' space has mass. Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter exist in and displacement the dark matter.
Not really per http://www.newsci...oss.html
Dark matter occurs in "filaments" along which galaxies coalesce, and this is supported both by gravity lensing observations and by galactic formation simulations, and a recent observation of dark matter "filaments" in the "galactic web" actually injecting dark matter into a forming galaxy and attracting bright matter into it.

We can see dark matter by its effects, and we see it not only inside galaxies but outside them.

These are gross and obvious effects that we can observe with modern telescopes. The fact that we haven't established its exact quantum particle composition only makes it mysterious, not nonexistent. The proof of dark matter's existence is not controversial.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The state of displacement of the dark matter *is* gravity.
Gravity is a gradient in the pressure of dark energy.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
Particles of matter are condensations of dark matter. When a nuclear bomb explodes matter evaporates into dark matter. The physical effects caused by the matter as it expands into dark matter is energy. Mass is conserved.
Matter comes from energy, not dark matter. Mass is not conserved in a nuclear explosion. Mass is converted back into energy.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2015
''Empty' space has mass. Dark matter fills 'empty' space. Particles of matter exist in and displacement the dark matter.
Not really per http://www.newsci...oss.html
Dark matter occurs in "filaments" along which galaxies coalesce, and this is supported both by gravity lensing observations and by galactic formation simulations, and a recent observation of dark matter "filaments" in the "galactic web" actually injecting dark matter into a forming galaxy and attracting bright matter into it.
That 'thing' you answered to is just another avatar of Returners. Please keep that 'thing' on ignore
Mimath224
4 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2015
@bla, thanks for the info. So I looked up Wiki and that says'
The first claim of pentaquark discovery was recorded at LEPS in Japan in 2003, and several experiments in the mid-2000s also reported discoveries of other pentaquark states.[4] Others were not able to replicate the LEPS results, ... On 13 July 2015, the LHCb collaboration at CERN reported results consistent with pentaquark states in the decay of bottom Lambda baryons...'
Wiki also says that pentaquarks are > 1500mev. Also that large number of quark arrangements are possible that some may be strongly bound some weakly.
Thanks again.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
Just reading this article in my mail. 'The Case for Complex Dark Matter' by James Bullock, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California, Irvine, see https://www.quant...-matter/
Also contains short video. Although I'm sure I've read elsewhere that DM interacts with itself only this seems to be the 'complex ' part. Something that I hadn't thought about was a complete section of our universe being composed solely of DM...wow that conjures a few ideas, D universe,D Suns D planets,...Dark life??????
Sorry about that, just my humerous side creeping in
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
Not really per http://www.newsci...oss.html


'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn....nd-voids

"Dark matter ... permeate[s] all the way to the center of the voids."

'No Empty Space in the Universe --Dark Matter Discovered to Fill Intergalactic Space'
http://www.dailyg...ce-.html

"A long standing mystery on where the missing dark matter is has been solved by the research. There is no empty space in the universe. The intergalactic space is filled with dark matter."
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
Close. The curvature of spacetime is the pressure associated with gradients of the dark energy.


Close. The curvature of spacetime is the pressure associated with gradients of the dark dark matter.

The dark matter is displaced by the matter. The displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
The lopsided halo is due to asymmetries in the pressure of gradients in the dark energy, or asymmetries in the curvature of spacetime, however you wish to look at it.


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

The matter in the Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
Dark matter occurs in "filaments" along which galaxies coalesce ...


Dark matter fills 'empty' space. The 'filaments' is the state of displacement of the dark matter.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
Gravity is a gradient in the pressure of dark energy.


Gravity is a gradient in the pressure associated with the dark matter which is displaced by the matter.

Dark matter fills 'empty' space.

The matter in the Milky Way is moving through and displacing the dark matter.

The displaced dark matter pushes back and exerts inward pressure toward the matter.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
Matter comes from energy, not dark matter.


Particles of matter are condensations of dark matter.

Mass is not conserved in a nuclear explosion.


In a nuclear explosion matter evaporates into dark matter. The physical effects caused by the evaporation *is* energy. Mass *is* conserved.

Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 22, 2015
evaporation *is* energy. Mass *is* conserved.
Mass is converted to energy by the equation e=mc*2.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2015
evaporation *is* energy. Mass *is* conserved.
Mass is converted to energy by the equation e=mc*2.


The physical effects caused by matter evaporating and expanding into dark matter during a nuclear explosion is the 'e' of e=mc^2
docile
Aug 22, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 22, 2015
The physical effects caused by matter evaporating and expanding into dark matter during a nuclear explosion is the 'e' of e=mc^2
So radiation expands dark matter. Now we know why the universe is expanding. Thanks.
liquidspacetime
1 / 5 (1) Aug 22, 2015
So radiation expands dark matter. Now we know why the universe is expanding. Thanks.

Our Universe is a larger version of a galactic polar jet.

Our Universe is a larger version of the following artist's image of a galactic polar jet.

http://discoverma...3015.jpg

Dark energy is dark matter continuously emitted into the Universal jet.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2015
@Mimath224
just my humerous side creeping in
Are you talking about your funny bone? :-]
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2015
viko_mx states
...This medium make possible the interactions of consituent particles of matter and control their behavior localy or globaly
Yay :-)

So you NOW accept the universe has pattern which easily allow all matter to self-assemble easily to such things as water, amino acids, proteins, cellular membranes, organisms, ie Life ?

All it takes is time to allow the matter to explore the permutations.

As it should be clear from your statement above humans should not require their deity to have narrow short time frames consistent only with human's constrained imagination ?

How does your god communicate viko_mx so very well & equally to all NOT giving men irrational power over others for their own aims ?

Anything EVER unequivocal not dependent on mere claim ?

viko_mx claims
Fictional dark matter, energy and black holes are connected with dark cult
Now you are showing ignorance, heard of Newton - he wasnt in the bible, the maths of gravity that works ?
bla
3.7 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2015
@Mimath224
@bla, thanks for the info. So I looked up Wiki and that says'
The first claim of pentaquark discovery was recorded at LEPS in Japan in 2003, and several experiments in the mid-2000s also reported discoveries of other pentaquark states.[4] Others were not able to replicate the LEPS results, ... On 13 July 2015, the LHCb collaboration at CERN reported results consistent with pentaquark states in the decay of bottom Lambda baryons...'
Wiki also says that pentaquarks are > 1500mev. Also that large number of quark arrangements are possible that some may be strongly bound some weakly.
Thanks again.


Welcome!
Yes, it's true that back in 2003/2004 there was an hype about the discovery of the pentaquark, but later it was acknowledge that the data was not statistically significant, so you can't claim it to be a measure of nothing.
1500 MeV is way too hot for compared to today's universe temperature (10 MeV are ~10^11 Kelvin); if it is not stable, it won't be produc
DavidW
1 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2015
verkle stated (out of the mouths of babies)
If we have not detected it, then NO, we don't know it is out there
LOL !

... jesus,...?

ie ALL have failed, all have NEVER been detected, have they ? all ONLY claimed in a simple book !
IOW: Your god is a LIAR, A CHEAT or an IDIOT or Insane OR doesnt exist !

Logic ?


Maybe he believes in a God that doesn't exist and that is the god you speak of. The True Living God has provided observable evidence: Truth and Life'. /not the Goldilocks's zone.

These are required for there to be a True Living God.

Now if a person is talking about a dead god, (one that doesn't matter because they are dead) or one that is a lie and tells lies (even we have the capability to speak and do truthfully at times and so we would be equal to such god and thus it can't really be a god), then I would agree with your anger of the perversion of people's minds.
adam_russell_9615
1 / 5 (1) Aug 23, 2015
If dark matter interacts graviticly (sp?) then it should clump and form star sized masses. Shouldnt we see gravitic lensing insufficiently strong to be a black hole?
docile
Aug 23, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (1) Aug 24, 2015
Ever since dark matter was first theorized, there have been many attempts to look for it...


I thought that when Zwicky postulated DM in 1933, he was ignored for 40 years until Vera Rubin did her analysis.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
If dark matter interacts graviticly (sp?) then it should clump and form star sized masses. Shouldnt we see gravitic lensing insufficiently strong to be a black hole?
Yes, it's actually the prevailing theory of galactic formation.
Just had an idea. Maybe then you could say galaxies are white holes formed by dark matter? Interesting.
docile
Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015

just my humerous side creeping in
Are you talking about your funny bone? :-]
Whoops, sorry about that didn't correct myself there eh? self down vote 1/5
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
Maybe then you could say galaxies are white holes formed by dark matter? Interesting.
Technically all objects glowing must be white holes with respect to general relativity. This theory doesn't recognize repulsive forces in similar way, like the quantum mechanics doesn't recognize attractive gravity. IMO the jets of galaxies are prime candidates for observable white holes (time reversed black holes). And the dark matter is http://phys.org/n...es.html, testable predictions done with these ideas are. When you promote some idea, you should also provide some way, in which such an idea can be tested. The ideas itself are just scalar tautologies and they cannot be tested as such.
Test this: if true every galaxy should have a dark matter halo.
docile
Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
inkosana
2 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
Physicists don't *know* it is out there, they **believe** it is out there,...
No, this is incorrect. They know something is out there, because (as you go on to correctly point out) there are observational anomalies, and these aren't minor anomalies, they're great big glaring ones.


There are no anomalies when measuring the speeds of luminous matter within galaxies. The apparent anomaly is caused by using the radial Doppler formula, while the speeds that are being measured are not along radial directions from the observation position on earth.

When deriving the correct formula for the latter motion the speeds of the luminous matter within a galaxy do decrease with distance from the centre of the galaxy as is required by Newton's law of gravity This correct formula is not found inn textbooks yet. Trying to publish it is impossible since the mainstream theoretical physicists want to believe that there is dark matter out there.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
@inkosana, 'When deriving the correct formula...Trying to publish it is impossible...' Are you saying it's your formula? If so, you can self publish.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
Well, some galaxies have it even without glowing (so-called the dark galaxies) - which is just an evidence of insight: the dark matter was here first, the galaxies later. Also the older parts of Universe are richer of dark matter in average, which would indicate, that some portion of dark matter has been already converted into a visible matter.
So every galaxy at one time was a dark galaxy during its formation. I get it..
docile
Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TimLong2001
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
How long will it take to start looking for other explanations of the background red shift?
bschott
1 / 5 (4) Aug 24, 2015
Bschott, an Higgs boson is a messenger of the Higgs field, like photons are messengers of EM interaction, gluons are messengers of the strong interaction, or W and Z are messengers of the weak interaction. Charged particles will radiate photons as they move on an EM field do to backreaction, but it doesn't mean that the photon is a building block of an electron. The Higgs boson is not a building block of massive matter, instead, matter gain mass due to its interaction with the Higgs boson.


So how does DM interact with the Higgs to gain it's mass if it doesn't react electromagnetically?

You know what, NVM. The explanation above is a hypothesis that can never be tested....like most of the "cornerstones" of theoretical physics.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
I'd like to close the book on DM once and for all, and in the process, save the science community a lot of money by diverting those research grants to more productive pursuits. After all, all efforts to find it have come up empty. Doesn't that say something?

Consider the following.. that the distance from the Earth to the Moon is 62 times the radius of the Earth. When you scale that down to where the Earth is the size of a regulation softball, then the moon would be the size of a large allie, and it would be about ten feet away from the softball. That says something about the force of gravity.

Experiments conducted on quark pairs demonstrate that the attractive force between two quarks increases as the distance between them increases. And yet, we do not observe the "force" of gravitational attraction of the Earth from space as being 9.8m/sec². IMO, we can deviate from the Newtonian math, and extend the quark phenomenon to the colossal scale. DM explained.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
So that the larger the central black hole is, the more probable its dark matter history gets.
I understand small black holes are more radioactive than large ones, so that would seem logical.
docile
Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
radioactive = radiative?
Believe so. Sorry.
docile
Aug 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2015
The black holes glow...
So black holes are not a form of dark matter. I can't recall why the question even came up.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
@Mimath224
Are you saying it's your formula? If so, you can self publish.


I always first try the so-called "peer-reviewed" journals even though it is their rule to censor everything.
But see http://www.amazon...tries*=0 It can be downloaded for free until Friday.

To correctly derive the Doppler formulas on must realise that since the same wave-front (wf) must move with the same speed c within all IRF's (no aether) the same wf as seen within different IRF's cannot coincide with itself in space. When a stationary source emits a wf this wf immediately starts to move away from this source. Within another IRF the wf does not appear at the coincident position of the source (when it emits this wf) but at another non-coincident position and another non-simultaneous time as demanded by the absence of aether. You then find that for the luminous matter moving within a galaxy, there is an angular term.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015

There are no anomalies when measuring the speeds of luminous matter within galaxies. The apparent anomaly is caused by using the radial Doppler formula, while the speeds that are being measured are not along radial directions from the observation position on earth.

When deriving the correct formula for the latter motion the speeds of the luminous matter within a galaxy do decrease with distance from the centre of the galaxy as is required by Newton's law of gravity This correct formula is not found inn textbooks yet. Trying to publish it is impossible since the mainstream theoretical physicists want to believe that there is dark matter out there.

So Doppler and Einstein do not understand the Doppler effect. Only you do.
Interesting.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
How long will it take to start looking for other explanations of the background red shift?

This already has been done by Zwicky in 1929, so the answer to your question is minus 86 years.
my2cts
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
I'd like to close the book on DM once and for all ... DM explained.

Extreme case of Dunning-Kruger.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
@my2cts
So Doppler and Einstein do not understand the Doppler effect. Only you do.
Interesting.
Doppler understood it very well for sound waves which propagate in a medium called air. Einstein correctly concluded that a light-wave does not move in aether. But incorrectly deduced that the frequency of a Doppler-shifted light-wave is inverse "time-dilation" of the moving source.:

This is wrong, since a light source also emits a wave with the same frequency no matter whether the source is moving relative to a detector or not moving relative to a detector. For sound the Doppler shift is f'=Df (where D is the Doppler-factor), since the wave is moving within a medium, where-as for a light wave the Doppler-shift is f'=(gamma)Df. (gamma) is required owing to the absence of aether:. It has NOTHING to do with time-dilation.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana Thanks. Have downloaded the book and will read as free time permits then send you a private comment.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2015
@Mimath: I am looking forward to your comments. Best regards.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana Thanks. Have downloaded the book and will read as free time permits then send you a private comment.


@ Mimath-Skippy. Can you tell me how to download him for free? Amazon-Skippy is telling me I have to join a club or something to get him free. I would ask Mrs-Ira-Skippy for help but I am not there right now. I am out working now.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
DM explained.
DM is an oxymoron. Matter radiates. DM does not. Therefore DM is not matter. But DM is a form of gravity which should be called dark gravity. Gravity is a pressure differential between different regions of spacetime. Matter displaces spacetime so regions of spacetime filled with matter experience less pressure from spacetime, but more pressure from regions outside of less matter, so gravity in the presence of matter is the difference between these pressures. But nothing in my books say differentials in the pressure of spacetime can only be caused by the presence of matter. What they call the curvature of spacetime is actually the path of particles passing through regions of different spacetime density.
inkosana
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana Thanks. Have downloaded the book and will read as free time permits then send you a private comment.


@ Mimath-Skippy. Can you tell me how to download him for free? Amazon-Skippy is telling me I have to join a club or something to get him free. I would ask Mrs-Ira-Skippy for help but I am not there right now. I am out working now.


Dear Uncle Ira,

You need a Kindle reader on your PC. If you do not have one you can download one for free from Amazon. To do this you might this have to join Amazon by signing up to get a password etc. If you still have problems, you can contact Amazon to ask them why. They usually answer within a day.

Regards
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
Spacetime pressure density may have its own reasons for variability besides the presence of matter. Everything in the macro world seems to have variability. Your guess is as good as mine.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
]DM is an oxymoron. Matter radiates.
When matter has only rest-mass with no internal kinetic-energy it cannot radiate since it is at absolute zero temperature. But this is impossible when it is surrounded by matter that is not also at absolute zero temperature.

However, when trapping a light-wave within a perfectly-reflecting cavity by resonance, its energy becomes rest-mass energy. Such a stationary light-wave has no kinetic energy, since it is not forming within aether, and it thus has that T=0. even though the cavity walls are not at T=0. This is what happens within a black-body cavity.

Only when light escapes from such a cavity through a hole in the wall or a semi-transparent part of the wall, does it have kinetic-energy. A black-hole is not caused by a singularity in space-time, but by stationary light-waves trapped within the collapsed volume of a star. If this light can escape, one obtains massive "laser-action" with the name pulsar or quasar!
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
Your guess is as good as mine.
Well maybe not. For example the big bang.
jeffensley
1 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn....nd-voids


I'll be honest, I really like this theory. It's clean and simple and explains gravity, expansion and why our detection methods fail. We seem to continue looking for "matter" that behaves the way we are familiar with. Not sure why these voids need to have mass however. What if dark matter is dimensional space itself "pouring" in through tears where matter as we know it is non-existent? Wouldn't that replicate the universal expansion we observe?
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana Thanks. Have downloaded the book and will read as free time permits then send you a private comment.


@ Mimath-Skippy. Can you tell me how to download him for free? Amazon-Skippy is telling me I have to join a club or something to get him free. I would ask Mrs-Ira-Skippy for help but I am not there right now. I am out working now.


Dear Uncle Ira,

You need a Kindle reader on your PC. If you do not have one you can download one for free from Amazon. To do this you might this have to join Amazon by signing up to get a password etc. If you still have problems, you can contact Amazon to ask them why. They usually answer within a day.

Regards


Thanks, I will email Mrs-Ira-Skippette and see if she will do it for me because I am not so good at that stuffs.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
A black-hole is not caused by a singularity in space-time, ...
Don't understand what is a singularity in space-time? I can understand the singularity as r approaches 0 in Newton's formula for gravity, but as the distance between two particles approaches 0 the particles eventually merge to form one particle, so for finite size particles there is no such thing as a singularity because r can never reach 0.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
I can understand the singularity as r approaches 0 in Newton's formula for gravity, but as the distance between two particles approaches 0 the particles eventually merge to form one particle, so for finite size particles there is no such thing as a singularity because r can never reach 0.


Bravo! All you still have to understand is that "space-time" is impossible since It violates the rules of linear algebra and requires that the same single instant in time occurs at many different instances in time.

In addition you have to understand that an electron can fuse with a proton since each one of them consists of the same fabric; namely continuously-distributed electromagnetic-energy. Thus forming a neutron which also consist of the same fabric. It is also for this reason why each one of these entities can diffract. If a neutron (or proton) consisted of separate quarks it would not have been able to diffract at all.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
'Dark matter' is now understood to fill what would otherwise be considered to be empty space.

'Cosmologists at Penn Weigh Cosmic Filaments and Voids'
http://www.upenn....nd-voids
I don't think it's necessary to fill empty space with anything. Just bend, fold, compress, curve it, or whatever, as in the filaments and voids. Nothing in the macro world I know of is perfectly uniform and I would expect that to hold for spacetime and its associated pressure..
Seeker2
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
All you still have to understand is that "space-time" is impossible since It violates the rules of linear algebra and requires that the same single instant in time occurs at many different instances in time.
So Einstein got it all wrong? Jeez!
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2015
So Einstein got it all wrong? Jeez!
Not all: But enough so that he derailed physics in 1905. In fact Einstein suspected all along that he was wrong on important aspects and only accepted Minkowski's F-Up many, many years later. He should have known better! He was desperate to save his idea of that gravity is geometry; which is of course BS. He had a nose for novel-physics but was an incompetent mathematician.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana Thanks. Have downloaded the book and will read as free time permits then send you a private comment.


@ Mimath-Skippy. Can you tell me how to download him for free? Amazon-Skippy is telling me I have to join a club or something to get him free. I would ask Mrs-Ira-Skippy for help but I am not there right now. I am out working now.


Dear Uncle Ira,

You need a Kindle reader on your PC. If you do not have one you can download one for free from Amazon. To do this you might this have to join Amazon by signing up to get a password etc. If you still have problems, you can contact Amazon to ask them why. They usually answer within a day.

Regards


I tried it. Mrs-Ira-Skippette tried it too. Amazon-Skippy still says I got to join the club and I don't want to do that. I just want to read the free book. So I guess I will wait until the library gets him.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Aug 25, 2015
I tried it. Mrs-Ira-Skippette tried it too. Amazon-Skippy still says I got to join the club and I don't want to do that. I just want to read the free book. So I guess I will wait until the library gets him.


Which club? I do not understand it.

If I knew your e-mail I will send you a copy. My e-mail is jonahinkosana@gmail.com. Why do you not create an e-mail as Ira@gmail.com or something similar, and send this to me? I will attach a copy of the book and send it to you.
docile
Aug 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2015
I tried it. Mrs-Ira-Skippette tried it too. Amazon-Skippy still says I got to join the club and I don't want to do that. I just want to read the free book. So I guess I will wait until the library gets him.


Which club? I do not understand it.


The Amazon club. They want me to join up and I don't want to do that.

If I knew your e-mail I will send you a copy. My e-mail is jonahinkosana@gmail.com. Why do you not create an e-mail as Ira@gmail.com or something similar, and send this to me? I will attach a copy of the book and send it to you.


Hooyeei, I just made a new email box so glam-Skippy could send me some proofs of his master degrees and junior diplomas and the six different kind of engineers that nobody believes he is. He sent me some proof he was the college drop out and some prize he won for being in the Air Force for nine months.

My physorg email is ira.the.skippy@gmail.com All little letters with the period dot between the words.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
We should look for evidence of dark matter black holes. Once found, we observe the relativistic jets to see what radiation/particles are being produced.
If radiation/particles are being produced then I don't think it would qualify as dark matter. Like sort of a quandary.
Seeker2
3 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
[He was desperate to save his idea of that gravity is geometry; which is of course BS. He had a nose for novel-physics but was an incompetent mathematician.
Sure sounds like it. Wonder why it seems to work in so many cases.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2015
@inkosana I think Uncle Ira means 'account'. Basically what you mentioned is correct, Uncle Ira needs to have an account with Amazon to download 'this and that' Since I have used Amazon for years buying non-fiction titles from them I didn't have a problem in downloading Kindle. I'm sorry but I am busy researching various maths topics for my own ideas (Time being one them) so I haven't read much of your book. I would like to offer a little advice though; it isn't a good idea to use term like 'horseshit' in a publication as you can get your point over by using terms like 'utter nonsense' etc. Please don't misunderstand, this is purely a friendly observation. One or two other points also but not appropriate to discuss with you here. Whether people agree with your ideas or not I think it is good to write formally, to 'stand up and be counted' as I usually say. Whether right or wrong it's all good stuff as far as I'm concerned to learn about others who think differently.
inkosana
1 / 5 (3) Aug 26, 2015
@seeker2
]Sure sounds like it. Wonder why it seems to work in so many cases.


The models used for black holes a la Hawking and Penrose are obtained by dividing by zero. Furthermore nobody has actually measured the properties of a black hole like its "singularity" or its "hawking radiation". It is still pure speculation. Although Einstein's theory predicts that light must refract within a gravitational field. this refraction is not caused by the curvature of space time. Light refracts since its permittivity and permeability changes. If it enters a glass slab with increasing density it will increasingly refract and follow a curved path. This does not mean that space within the glass slab is curved: You can model it as if this is the case and get the correct answer, just like epicycles gave the correct answer for planetary motion. The physics is, however, wrong.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Aug 26, 2015
offer a little advice though; it isn't a good idea to use term like 'horseshit' in a publication as you can get your point over by using terms like 'utter nonsense' etc. Please don't misunderstand, this is purely a friendly observation.


Thank you for this advice. I have agonised about using this word but unfortunately it fits the post-modern mentality of modern theoretical physicists extremely well. In the revised version I will change it to horse manure. Basically they are digging around in horse manure hoping to find a pony which is not there! Admiral optimism but totally out of touch with reality. But thanks again.
docile
Aug 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 26, 2015
The physics is, however, wrong.
I guess Einstein was thinking of spacetime as particle tracks.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2015
Well I am still waiting for my free book. Opening up that new email box looks to be the waste of ol Ira-Skippy's time. First no proofs of glam-Skippy's master degrees and junior diplomas and six different kinds of engineer that he isn't really are.

Now it looks like I won't get the free book either. You Skippys sure do lie a lot when you are begging for away to send out something. What you couyons think? Ol Ira-Skippy is so stupid that he is going let everybody forget you offered?
mreda14
not rated yet Aug 26, 2015
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe. Other than neutrinos, a form of hot dark matter, it has not been detected directly, making it one of the greatest mysteries in modern astrophysics.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
Well I am still waiting for my free book. Opening up that new email box looks to be the waste of ol Ira-Skippy's time


I have sent the book attached skippy@gmai.com and sent it. I will try again.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
Uncle Ira,

Somebody has hijacked your e-mail. When I send it to skippy@gmail.com it goes to Bush Kangaroo. Try to create another e-mail for example Ira@gmail.comand let me know to try again.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
The physics is, however, wrong.
I guess Einstein was thinking of spacetime as particle tracks.


That is not "space-time" since a "particle-track" is solely formed within space with time changing along the track as one expects from absolute time..
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
Dark matter is a hypothetical kind of matter that cannot be seen with telescopes but would account for most of the matter in the universe. The existence and properties of dark matter are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe.
These inferences are wrong. These effects are not caused by extra invisible matter. The motion of luminous matter in galaxies follows Newton's law of gravity as it must. The large scale structure of the universe is based on Einstein's wrong "General Theory of Relativity". in which he assumed that the laws of nature are covariant under a relativistic coordinate transformation: According to the principle of relativity the laws of nature must be invariant. Each inertial reference frame has its own set of laws as if this IRF is tha only stationary IRF in the universe. See http://www.amazon...ntries*=
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
@inkosana I wish to write you a private message concerning your book (not yet finished reading) but although we have a message inbox I have been unable to find the method by which to send a message. Is this only for special members or donating members etc? I had thought that my browser (Google Chrome) was not showing the relevant icon but trying IE is the same. You have your email address in the book but without your agreement I will not use it. Perhaps a FaceBook page?
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
@Mimath224,

Use the e-mail in the book. It is in the book since I want feedback from people who are reading the book. One can always learn from this feedback, to correct mistakes or misunderstandings.
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 27, 2015
@inkosana. Thank you. Will do so in a day or two.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
@ inko-Skippy

Uncle Ira,

Somebody has hijacked your e-mail. When I send it to skippy@gmail.com it goes to Bush Kangaroo. Try to create another e-mail for example Ira@gmail.comand let me know to try again.


Non Cher, the email IS: ira.the.skippy@gmail.com. All little letters with the period dots between the words.

Nobody has hijacked him non, you put in the wrong thing. I know because it still gets the spammy stuff with girls trying to be my girlfriend from the Face-place-Skippys. I don't want any girlfriends, I just want the free book.

Also some proofs from glam-Skippy about his master degrees and junior diplomas and his senior engineer stuffs would be good to get but I am thinking that if he really had any of that he would already send him to me.
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2015
Sorry Uncle Ira. It is on its way!
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2015
Sorry Uncle Ira. It is on its way!


@ inko-Skippy.

I got him in the email. Thanks and I will start reading him sometime today. It is really nice to see somebody on the physorg tell you they are going to send something and then send him.

I really wanted ol glam-Skippy to send the proofs of his master degrees and junior diplomas and senior engineer (six different kinds of senior engineer) stuffs but all he sent was a paper that said he dropped out of college and went to the radio school in the Air Forces. He did win a prize for that though, the Rotary Club took him out to eat and the Chamber of Commerse even give him a $25 certificate and a free weekend at the Bakersfield Holiday Inn.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
See http://www.amazon...ntries*=
time must be an absolute invariant entity? Really? For moving clocks and clocks in a gravitational field?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
he assumed that the laws of nature are covariant under a relativistic coordinate transformation: According to the principle of relativity the laws of nature must be invariant.
Apparently Minkowski reformulated special relativity to give the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum. In this case time is only a part of the 4th dimension. So I guess this is the principle of relativity you're talking about, not Einstein's laws of nature.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 28, 2015
See http://www.amazon...ntries*=
time must be an absolute invariant entity? Really? For moving clocks and clocks in a gravitational field?


Correct! Which moving clocks are you talking about? Time is not created by clocks. It exists and when an event occurs this event occurs at an instant in time.

When events occurs simultaneously they occur at the SAME instant in time. I exist now and everything in the universe (whether it is stationary relative to me, or moving relative to me, or experiences a different gravity) exists simultaneously with me NOW, Thus NOW is the same time everywhere in the universe. It is impossible that NOW CANNOT be universally the SAME time. Thus for which logical reason is it possible that my NOW is not the same now for a person who is moving relative to me or who lives on the other side of the universe. It is amazing that a genius like Einstein could have argued such utter nonsense.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 28, 2015
Apparently Minkowski ,,,In this case time is only a part of the 4th dimension. So I guess this is the principle of relativity you're talking about
No, Minkowski's space time is simply incorrect physics based on impossible mathematics.

The principle of relativity was formulated by Galileo according to which the laws of nature are INVARIANT: i.e. they are the same within any inertial reference frame as if this IRF is the only IRF in the universe. This demands that identical clocks based on the same physics-mechanism, must keep identical time within all IRF's.

I suppose that what you call Einstein's laws is his two postulates on which he based his special theory of relativity. The first postulate is Galileo's principle of relativity incorrectly formulated as if the laws of physics are covariant: They are NOT. Only Einstein's second postulate on light-speed is correct and this second postulate does NOT require that time-dilation must occur..
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2015
No, Minkowski's space time is simply incorrect physics based on impossible mathematics.
I get it. There is no such thing as the square root of minus one so the mathematics is impossible.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 28, 2015
I get it. There is no such thing as the square root of minus one so the mathematics is impossible.
No you do not get it. The square root of minus one plays a role when you trap a light-wave within a cavity so that it becomes a stationary wave. But this is only within the volume of an electro-magnetic wave.

Minkowski wants us to believe that it is also valid in free space where it defines a fourth linearly independent coordinate. Basically what he is saying is that you have a four-dimensional hypotenuse s for which s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2 where w=i(ct): so that s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2-(ct)^2. This is not possible since a hypotenuse can only have PLUS signs for linearly independent coordinates.

The last equation thus defines a hypotenuse given by q^2=s^2+(ct)^2=x^2+y^2+z^2. In other words the dimension is ONLY THREE not FOUR. Here q is the hypotenuse within a 2D plane within three-dimensional space. Thus both s and ct are space-vectors in 3D space: A 4D manifold must have w^2>0..
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
Thus both s and ct are space-vectors in 3D space:
Space vectors which change with time seem to be a bit counter-intuitive to me.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 28, 2015
Thus both s and ct are space-vectors in 3D space:
Space vectors which change with time seem to be a bit counter-intuitive to me.


A space-position-vector that changes with time models motion. Therefore one can write that for such a space-vector that r=vt when the vector r is the position vector of a centre-of-mass. And r=ct when the vector is the position of a wave-front. Do you NOT understand the most simple and most fundamental relationship in physics between position speed and time, or is it too complicated for you to understand? I cannot see why it is counter-intuitive! Please explain to me why r=vt is counter-intuitive. I thought that this expression is proved on a daily basis by the odometer and speedometer in my car which travels SOLELY in 3D space!.

Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 28, 2015
A space-position-vector that changes with time models motion.
I'd rather have a space-position vector that changes with position.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
I'd rather have a space-position vector that changes with position.
What is different in this to what I have posted? If the point of the position vector changes along a direction r with position, this point is moving, and after having moved for a time t the distance that the point of the position-vector has moved will be vt when the speed with which it moved is v, or ct when the vector gives the position of a wave-front. Both vt and ct are distances within three-dimensional space with ONLY three coordinates x,y,z.

There is not an extra fourth coordinate ct involved and NEVER was!! If an extra fourth coordinate is w one must have from Pythagoras for higher dimensions that w^2 MUST BE LARGER THAN ZERO. If w^2 is negative it means that it is on the wrong side of Pythagoras' equations and can therefore NOT BE ATN EXTRA coordinate. This has been known and taught for more than 2000 years. Why do you have a problem with the theorem of Pythagoras?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2015
w^2 MUST BE LARGER THAN ZERO.
That's Pythagoras. Not Minkowski. Time to move on.
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
@Seeker2
Mimath224
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
@Seeker2 sorry about that, posted all by itself. Was about to agree with you and quote example from basic tensors...changed my mind.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
w^2 MUST BE LARGER THAN ZERO.
That's Pythagoras. Not Minkowski. Time to move on.
So since Minkowski was too incompetent to understand Pythagoras, we must follow Minkowski? It is not possible to have a four-dimensional manifold with the hypotenuse s of its position-vector given by s^2=x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2 when w^2 is a negative number. If it is a negative number, this number has to be moved to the other side of the equation to be a distance within a three-dimensional space. The dimension is ONLY defined by the maximum number of positive quadratic terms. That is the fundamental rule of demanded by the mathematics of manifolds which can be verified in any text books on linear algebra and manifolds. It also applies to Hilbert space for the same reason. So why does this impeccable rule of mathematics not apply to Minkowski's so called "space-time"? Please explain why such an abuse of the rules of mathematics is allowed in this case.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
@Seeker2 sorry about that, posted all by itself. Was about to agree with you and quote example from basic tensors...changed my mind.
There is not any example from tensor-analysis that you can quote which justifies Minkowski's wrong belief that w can be a fourth coordinate when w^2 is a negative number. It is against all the rules of function-spaces. If it could be so then one must also have for a wave-function that (psi)times(psi)* can be negative.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
Minkowski's wrong belief that w can be a fourth coordinate when w^2 is a negative number.
No problem. Just use complex variables.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
A complex variable cannot be a linearly independent coordinate that adds an extra dimension. The positions within a complex plane are not positions within a 2-dimensional space since the position vector s does not just give coordinates but the real and imaginary components of complex numbers. You cannot rotate the axes i(ct) and x so that s remains an invariant position-vector. Please read section 4 in my book: "Why does E=mc2".
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
The positions within a complex plane are not positions within a 2-dimensional space since the position vector s does not just give coordinates but the real and imaginary components of complex numbers.
Right. They are positions within a 3-dimensional space. Have a link for chapter 4?
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
The positions within a complex plane are not positions within a 2-dimensional space since the position vector s does not just give coordinates but the real and imaginary components of complex numbers.
Right. They are positions within a 3-dimensional space. Have a link for chapter 4?
The book was available for free on Amazon until yesterday. If you want a copy of chapter 4, send me an e-mail to jonahinkosana@gmail.com. On the other hand the whole book is available on Amazon for less than the price of a glass of not too good wine in the USA ($6) as I have found out when I was in the USA four months ago. So by paying less than $6 you can download it from:
http://www.amazon...tries*=0
Will this bankrupt you? I think that this book is a worthwhile read and many re-reads afterwards. If you do not agree with this after having read it, and motivate in terms of good physics why you do not agree with it, I will refund you
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
The positions within a complex plane are not positions within a 2-dimensional space since the position vector s does not just give coordinates but the real and imaginary components of complex numbers.
Right. They are positions within a 3-dimensional space. Have a link for chapter 4?
I only now noted what you stated: You have a flat plane with a two-dimensional position-vector: How can it be a 3-dimensional space? Where is the third dimension? You have s=x+ict and the length of the vector is the square root of s times s*, which gives s^2=x^2+(ct)^2. I only see two quadratic components which are however NOT two components in real space, so that s can be invariant when the axes are rotated.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
The positions within a complex plane are not positions within a 2-dimensional space since the position vector s does not just give coordinates but the real and imaginary components of complex numbers.
Right. They are positions within a 3-dimensional space. Have a link for chapter 4?
I only now noted what you stated: You have a flat plane with a two-dimensional position-vector: How can it be a 3-dimensional space? Where is the third dimension? You have s=x+ict and the length of the vector is the square root of s times s*, which gives s^2=x^2+(ct)^2. I only see two quadratic components which are however NOT two components in real space, so that s can be invariant when the axes are rotated.
Should have said 4-dimensional space with a 3-dimensional volume. Sorry.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 29, 2015
Should have said 4-dimensional space with a 3-dimensional volume. Sorry.
Utter nonsense,: You either have a four dimensional manifold or a three dimensional manifold: The impeccable rules of mathematics are quite clear on when you have the one or the other. And according to these rules Minkowski's so-called "space-time" can NEVER be a four-dimensional manifold EVER!!
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2015
The impeccable rules of mathematics are quite clear on when you have the one or the other. And according to these rules Minkowski's so-called "space-time" can NEVER be a four-dimensional manifold EVER!!
Guess I missed class that day.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 30, 2015
The impeccable rules of mathematics are quite clear on when you have the one or the other. And according to these rules Minkowski's so-called "space-time" can NEVER be a four-dimensional manifold EVER!!
Guess I missed class that day.


You, like all of us, including Einstein, did not have competent mathematics professors. It is absolutely amazing that for more than 100 years these professors knew that the scalar-product of imaginary coordinates must be positive definite and that for this reason this product MUST be between the imaginary coordinate and its complex conjugate coordinate. But then when it comes to the Minkowski "coordinate" I(ct) they summarily ignore this mathematical rule and calculate a scalar product by multiplying the imaginary-coordinate with itself to obtain a negative result: This is not allowed when choosing an imaginary coordinate. And therefore it gives mathematic- and physics-nonsense.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
You, like all of us, including Einstein, did not have competent mathematics professors.
Where can we find some of these competent mathematics professors, if indeed there are any out there?
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
You, like all of us, including Einstein, did not have competent mathematics professors.
Reminds me of all the physicists out there looking for dark matter particles.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
The impeccable rules of mathematics...
Do you have any links to these impeccable mathematics?
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 30, 2015
Where can we find some of these competent mathematics professors, if indeed there are any out there?
They are there but have not considered the mathematical validity of Minkowski's "space-time" The real culprits are the so-called "mathematical physicists" who ignore the fundamental laws of mathematics to get the physics they want to get.

Reminds me of all the physicists out there looking for dark matter particles
They do not want to hear that the radial Doppler formulas were used which gave the wrong result. If you use the correct Doppler-formula a far-away star which is not moving radially away from the observation point on earth, the speeds that are obtained are commensurate with Newton's law of gravity, without having to invoke "dark matter". Prof Laemmerzahl, editor of "Advances in Space Science" refuses to publish this since the derivation of these correct Doppler formulas also proves that the Lorentz-transformations do NOT form a group..
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 30, 2015
The impeccable rules of mathematics...
Do you have any links to these impeccable mathematics?
All mathematical text books on multi-dimensional vector-spaces, matrices and tensors are based on these impeccable rules, which must be valid to have linearly-independent coordinates. These rules are violated by Minkowski's choice of (ct) as a fourth coordinate which he claims has a scalar product that is negative. For any N-dimensional manifold, these scalar products MUST always be positive definite. That is why one must have in Hilbert space that the wave-functions which form the coordinates must have positive-definite scalar products Integral[(psi)(psi)*]dV>0.

I am now on my way to Cape Town and will not be able to post any comment for the rest of this day.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 30, 2015
The impeccable rules of mathematics...
Do you have any links to these impeccable mathematics?
All mathematical text books on multi-dimensional vector-spaces, matrices and tensors are based on these impeccable rules, which must be valid to have linearly-independent coordinates. These rules are violated by Minkowski's choice of (ct) as a fourth coordinate which he claims has a scalar product that is negative. For any N-dimensional manifold, these scalar products MUST always be positive definite. That is why one must have in Hilbert space that the wave-functions which form the coordinates must have positive-definite scalar products Integral[(psi)(psi)*]dV>0.

I am now on my way to Cape Town and will not be able to post any comment for the rest of this day.
I'm looking for links, not polemics. Have a good trip to Cape Town.
inkosana
not rated yet Aug 31, 2015
I'm looking for links, not polemics. Have a good trip to Cape Town.


That is EXACTLY what I gave you. You want links to fundamental mathematics which have been in textbooks for over 100 years. There is no polemics involved in these links. I cannot help it that Einstein and Minkowski were not able to grasp the rules of elementary mathematics and geometry.

The concept linear independence of coordinates have been around ever since Descartes constructed Cartesian coordinates; and it is also inherent the theorem of Pythagoras. It is astonishing that Einstein and his mathematics professor did not know this. What is even more astonishing is that modern "mathematical physicists" should know this but then prefer to ignore it when they model relativity.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2015
You want links to fundamental mathematics which have been in textbooks for over 100 years. There is no polemics involved in these links. I cannot help it that Einstein and Minkowski were not able to grasp the rules of elementary mathematics and geometry.
Actually I was looking for links to the impeccable mathematics that these guys couldn't understand. If there is no link to the fundamental mathematics then maybe you could provide one to the impeccable mathematics?
SHREEKANT
not rated yet Sep 13, 2015
"They believe … they collide"

2nd OPINION:
Normally Dark matter not collide, they readjust itself because our atm. is stable now.

If these particles collide with white atom then some energy is released but not at our atm. condition [not even below the earth where various experiments have been conducted].

"There is no way … our world."

"He and his colleagues ... matter particles themselves" 2nd OPINION:

We study terrestrial science [on the basis of 4% stuffs], the universal science is diff. [on the basis of 4% + 96% stuffs]. My hypothesis [based on UNIVERSAL SCIENCE] can explain & re-explain everything.

"The hope … through Earth."

2nd OPINION:
THIS IS THE BIG MISTAKE WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH DARK MATTER DETECTION EXPERIMENTS

Large amt. of Dark atom may be detected when ......

http://swarajgrou...ark.html

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.