New theory of stealth dark matter may explain universe's missing mass

September 24, 2015
This 3D map illustrates the large-scale distribution of dark matter, reconstructed from measurements of weak gravitational lensing by using the Hubble Space Telescope.

Lawrence Livermore scientists have come up with a new theory that may identify why dark matter has evaded direct detection in Earth-based experiments.

A group of national particle physicists known as the Lattice Strong Dynamics Collaboration, led by a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory team, has combined theoretical and computational physics techniques and used the Laboratory's massively parallel 2-petaflop Vulcan supercomputer to devise a new model of . It identifies it as naturally "stealthy" (i.e. like its namesake aircraft, difficult to detect) today, but would have been easy to see via interactions with ordinary matter in the extremely high-temperature plasma conditions that pervaded the early universe.

"These interactions in the early universe are important because ordinary and dark matter abundances today are strikingly similar in size, suggesting this occurred because of a balancing act performed between the two before the universe cooled," said Pavlos Vranas of LLNL, and one of the authors of the paper, "Direct Detection of Stealth Dark Matter through Electromagnetic Polarizability". The paper appears in an upcoming edition of the journal Physical Review Letters and is an "Editor's Choice."

Dark matter makes up 83 percent of all matter in the universe and does not interact directly with electromagnetic or strong and weak nuclear forces. Light does not bounce off of it, and goes through it with only the feeblest of interactions. Essentially invisible, it has been termed dark matter, yet its interactions with gravity produce striking effects on the movement of galaxies and galactic clusters, leaving little doubt of its existence.

Lawrence Livermore scientists have devised a new model of dark matter. It identifies it as naturally "stealthy" today, but would have been easy to see via interactions with ordinary matter in the extremely high-temperature plasma conditions that pervaded the early universe.

The key to stealth dark matter's split personality is its compositeness and the miracle of confinement. Like quarks in a neutron, at high temperatures, these electrically charged constituents interact with nearly everything. But at lower temperatures they bind together to form an electrically neutral composite particle. Unlike a neutron, which is bound by the ordinary strong interaction of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), the stealthy neutron would have to be bound by a new and yet-unobserved strong interaction, a dark form of QCD.

"It is remarkable that a dark matter candidate just several hundred times heavier than the proton could be a composite of electrically charged constituents and yet have evaded so far," Vranas said.

Similar to protons, stealth dark matter is stable and does not decay over cosmic times. However, like QCD, it produces a large number of other nuclear particles that decay shortly after their creation. These particles can have net electric charge but would have decayed away a long time ago. In a particle collider with sufficiently high energy (such as the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland), these particles can be produced again for the first time since the . They could generate unique signatures in the particle detectors because they could be electrically charged.

"Underground direct detection experiments or experiments at the Large Hadron Collider may soon find evidence of (or rule out) this new stealth ," Vranas said.

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

More information: Paper: arxiv.org/abs/1503.04205

Related Stories

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 ...

How we plan to bring dark matter to light

September 17, 2015

Long before we had the atomic theory of matter, scientists knew the air was real, even though it was invisible. This was because we could see its action as the wind caressed the leaves in trees.

Recommended for you

How the Earth stops high-energy neutrinos in their tracks

November 22, 2017

Neutrinos are abundant subatomic particles that are famous for passing through anything and everything, only very rarely interacting with matter. About 100 trillion neutrinos pass through your body every second. Now, scientists ...

Lightning, with a chance of antimatter

November 22, 2017

A storm system approaches: the sky darkens, and the low rumble of thunder echoes from the horizon. Then without warning... Flash! Crash!—lightning has struck.

Quantum internet goes hybrid

November 22, 2017

In a recent study published in Nature, ICFO researchers led by ICREA Prof. Hugues de Riedmatten report an elementary "hybrid" quantum network link and demonstrate photonic quantum communication between two distinct quantum ...

Enhancing the quantum sensing capabilities of diamond

November 22, 2017

Researchers have discovered that dense ensembles of quantum spins can be created in diamond with high resolution using an electron microscopes, paving the way for enhanced sensors and resources for quantum technologies.

Study shows how to get sprayed metal coatings to stick

November 21, 2017

When bonding two pieces of metal, either the metals must melt a bit where they meet or some molten metal must be introduced between the pieces. A solid bond then forms when the metal solidifies again. But researchers at MIT ...

123 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

verkle
Sep 24, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Moltvic
2.8 / 5 (16) Sep 24, 2015
....ordinary and dark matter abundances today are strikingly similar in size....


and yet

Dark matter makes up 83 percent of all matter....


These 2 statements seem to contradict.

So funny that some scientists can try to seem so exact "83%..." about something that has never been observed. Talk about blind faith!


Dogma knows no bounds.
Ophelia
4.4 / 5 (20) Sep 24, 2015
@verkle

The statements are not "contradictory". Now, if the difference was that dark matter comprised 1 million times the amount of ordinary matter, you may have a point. 83% vs 17% is similar in size when you consider the possible range that those numbers might have been - such as 99.999999% vs 0.000001%, for example.

The question is why are the numbers so close in size when they could have been much, much, much farther apart.
Hyperfuzzy
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 24, 2015
@verkle

The statements are not "contradictory". Now, if the difference was that dark matter comprised 1 million times the amount of ordinary matter, you may have a point. 83% vs 17% is similar in size when you consider the possible range that those numbers might have been - such as 99.999999% vs 0.000001%, for example.

The question is why are the numbers so close in size when they could have been much, much, much farther apart.

In other words a correction for physics that does not work, empirically; only within the head of the creator. Therefor Magic is real, just misunderstood.
Urgelt
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 24, 2015
"It is remarkable that a dark matter candidate just several hundred times heavier than the proton could be a composite of electrically charged constituents and yet have evaded direct detection so far," Vranas said."

Going to go full-on troll for a moment and add snarkily, "Yeah, that's really remarkable."

At some point, not finding it means the hypothesis is false, don't you think?

Eh, I'm just impatient. Don't mind me.
Tri-ring
2.2 / 5 (10) Sep 24, 2015
If there are more then three spacial dimensions like what is theorized in string theory then dark matter can be explained easily. Basically they do not occupy our three spacial dimensions since the vibrating string's harmonics do not have chord with our three besides gravity.

flag
1 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
There is an asymmetry between the mass of the electric charges, for example proton and electron, can understood by the asymmetrical Planck Distribution Law. This temperature dependent energy distribution is asymmetric around the maximum intensity, where the annihilation of matter and antimatter is a high probability event. The asymmetric sides are creating different frequencies of electromagnetic radiations being in the same intensity level and compensating each other. One of these compensating ratios is the electron – proton mass ratio. The lower energy side has no compensating intensity level, it is the dark energy and the corresponding matter is the dark matter.
http://vixra.org/abs/1509.0165
docile
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Tri-ring wrote, "If there are more then three spacial dimensions like what is theorized in string theory then dark matter can be explained easily. Basically they do not occupy our three spacial dimensions since the vibrating string's harmonics do not have chord with our three besides gravity."

Careful, you'll run afoul of physicist David Deutsch. In a nutshell: "Easy variability Is the sign of a bad explanation."

https://www.ted.c...guage=en

Your hypothesis survives easily no matter how many dimensions are postulated. Unseen particles can have any properties at all. In science, that's a no-go.

An hypothesis must be specific, invariable, and falsifiable through testing.

If you want to propose easy-to-vary hypotheses, take up religion.
EyeNStein
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
Great work Livermore: A new possibility for dark matter to consider, which would naturally interact only when de-confined at higher energy scales. And would be nearly invisible at the cold energy scales of any static detector we could build. But might be producible at the high energy end of the LHC.

A new super-strong force with ultra-tight-confinement with maybe ultra-quarks creating 'ultra-confined-neutrons' is brilliant lateral thinking. Their cross section could be so small that any standard model particle, having a much longer wavelength, would hardly interact.
docile
Sep 25, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2015
And you can see why Livermore's bigger super-computer would lead to this possibility being considered: As the vacuum is modelled with more samples and increased resolution, at smaller scales larger energies would need to be considered (By machines with more digits before the decimal point). Their vacuum fluctuations would naturally climb closer to singularities becoming less visible to normal long wavelength matter.
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Sep 25, 2015
These 2 statements seem to contradict.

Something that is within the same order of magnitude is strikingly similar in size. Given the huge ranges available such a 'neat' fit should always give pause (and a cause for investigation)

Going to go full-on troll for a moment and add snarkily, "Yeah, that's really remarkable."

At some point, not finding it means the hypothesis is false, don't you think?

There's something out there - we know that. We can see the effects (and have given a name to the effects: dark matter). So the hypothesis isn't false. It's 'just' a matter of finding out what dark matter actually is. Don't get confused by the 'matter' moniker to imply that there is already somethng known about its nature other than that it has the same effect as something massive.

Having a larger mass than the proton and not being detected (yet) is not remarkable. The top quark is 183 times the mass of a proton and was first seen in 1995.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Auntie, Dark Matter is not an hypothesis. It explains nothing. It's just a placeholder pending a real explanation. So of course it's not 'false.' It's a class of phenomena waiting for an explanation.

But there are hypotheses (proposed explanations). Quite a lot of them, in fact. To the extent physicists can test them with available tech and money, those hypotheses are being investigated experimentally.

Those hypotheses aren't false, either (nor confirmed by evidence). Not yet. Though a couple of them are running out of places to hide.

I'm just impatient.

And on a gut level, I'm dissatisfied, too. The hypotheses thus far advanced don't ring true for me. I'm not convinced 'dark matter' is matter at all.

But if my gut were accurate in such matters, it would have a physics PhD and be getting grants. Though I'm not sure how it would manage to type up a study, it's a little short on fingers. *I'm* sure not going to do it. :P
Urgelt
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
So, why don't the current crop of dark matter hypotheses ring true for me?

One: none of them is predicted by the Standard Model. SM has been very damned good at telling us what particles to expect and how they are put together. Granted, it is incomplete. But it's not incomplete in the sense of missing noninteractive particles. It's incomplete in the sense of explaining gravity, which may not have a particle explanation at all. Though of course if we find particles SM didn't predict, we'll know better how far to trust it.

Two: I'm not entirely convinced that relativity theory doesn't need some work. If it *does* need work, then we may be interpreting light from cosmological objects incorrectly. (I would like to see some SR testing to prove its predicted reciprocal time dilation, and I see relativity's frames as problematic.)

But again, I don't trust my gut very far. Hell, it once persuaded me to vote for Nixon. That was just before Watergate broke. So, yeah. :-)
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
Its interesting how similar this articles 3D graphic of dark matter distribution is to the 3D vacuum fluctuation graphics like: http://www.fuw.ed...mg97.png

Perhaps the reason we don't have Dark Matter in the Standard Model yet is that it's frozen (by Universal inflation) from primordial vacuum fluctuations; and therefore pre-dates the existence of SM particles. Though this also implies that any dark particle capable of surviving the inflation epoch intact might be force-confined near the plank scale. So no detector or LHC upgrade could replicate its creation conditions.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
I assumed in my comment; that as prior to inflation the 'speed of light' limitation didn't exist and physics was very different, only very-tightly-confined particles near the GUT energy could survive the inflationary phase transition as space and dimensions and law changed around them.

The dark matter of this article could therefore be a fossil of matter which existed before the inflationary epoch and therefore, unfortunately, be confined so near to the plank scale cross-section as to be undetectable except by gravity.
shavera
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2015
Observation: galaxies rotate in way not predicted by the visible mass. Hypothesis: there's more mass that isn't visible.

Test of hypothesis: If there's more mass out there than what is visible, then it will bend light accordingly.

Look at how light bends around galaxies: bends as if extra mass is present.

Test of hypothesis: If there's more matter out there than what is visible, and it was present in the beginning of the universe, we should see variations in the soundwaves in the cosmic microwave background.

Look at "Baryon Acoustic Oscillations" in the CMB: it matches the model proposed with dark matter and dark energy.

So when someone says "Dark matter" is not a hypothesis, they are either lying, or don't understand basic science well enough to have an informed opinion on the matter.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 25, 2015
It may be a new theory within its class, but the class of composite models of ordinary matter isn't. It may work, but it isn't the simplest models compared to supersymmetric or axion particles. The "steakth" part is a new twist in order to explain why the composite class hasn't been easily observed.

And since we have crackpots on the thread, dark matter is observed in the CMB peaks as well as elsewhere. You can't explain current cosmology - observations or theory - without it.

@Tri-ring: String theory doesn't work that way, the strings occupy all the dimensions of the theory. Gravitons would be closed string loops by the way.

@flag: No. The mass asymmetry goes back to the matter/antimatter symmetry which removed the equally large particles (anti-protons) that could make negative atomic nuclei.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (12) Sep 25, 2015
The hypotheses thus far advanced don't ring true for me

After going through lectures on quantum mechanics I don't give much on the 'needs to ring true' idea anymore. Gut feeling is a very bad judeg for the very small and the very large (gut feeling evolved to cope with the 1cm to several meter scale. On any other scale I wouldn't rely too heavily on it)

But it's not incomplete in the sense of missing noninteractive particles.

There are other (almost) noninteractive particles in the standard model (neutrinos). So there's no reason to dismiss the chance of other classes of particles (or whatever) that fit the bill. E.g. the standard model allows majorana fermions (which are a candidated for dark matter) which would show only very weak interaction.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
@Urgelt: "It's just a placeholder".

How many times must it be explained to "no dark matter" anti-scientists that there are no 'placeholders' in physical models!?

You can have them in mathematical equations as convenience parameters, but in a physical situation unknown (non-composite) parameters have a definite existence, with units and all.

It's a term for buffoons.

Besides that, dark matter has long since graduated from being a "missing mass" [see? existence!] to a vital fact in current cosmology and observed in very many ways.

@EyeNStein: "The dark matter of this article could therefore be a fossil of matter which existed before the inflationary epoch"

Inflation diluted all putative previous matter away to zero density. (Same as it diluted away any cosmic strings or other spacetime defects.) So, no, it couldn't.
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.6 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
We can put numbers on inflation dilution. The current observations put the exponential order of expansions in inflation as at least 60, or from base e to base 10 ~30 orders of magnitude.

If you had a baryonic piece of matter (say, a gas compressed to the density of a solid), a dm^3 cube would generously have ~ 10^23 atoms. So after inflation one of its atoms would occupy 10^67 dm^3 or a cube with a ~ 10^8 light year side. (And you would have 10^23 such cubes occupying 10^90 dm^3 or a cube with a side of 10^14 light years.)

Now if DM before expansion behaved as after, it would seldom have had those densities. Perhaps a better way to put it is that you have to explain away 30 oom expansion!
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 25, 2015
Oops. I meant an atom's volume cube would have a 10^6 ly side. (I'm just to rush out, shouldn't do this in my head. :-/)
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
Torbjorn, the term 'place-holder' for dark matter is used by physicists quite often. Using it is not anti-science in the least.

For example, William Harris and Craig Freudenrich, both physicists, wrote in an article for laymen:

"It's known as dark matter, which is itself a placeholder – like the x or y used in algebra class – for something unknown and heretofore unseen."

http://science.ho...tter.htm

Recalibrate your rage, dude. You're aiming at the wrong target.

You can always tell the cranks from pro-science people, you know that, right? Cranks are absolutely dead certain that they, and not scientists, have the answers. Me, I poke fun at my silly gut feelings. I *know* they're of no value.

There are some questions I enjoy probing and discussing, or even arguing, sometimes. But you'll hear no declarations of certainty from me when science says we don't know.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 25, 2015
Observation: galaxies rotate in way not predicted by the visible mass
You're grossly confused, Zwickey was only considering Spiral galaxies, not the majority population of Ellipticals.


Test of hypothesis: If there's more mass out there than what is visible, then it will bend light accordingly
Look at how light bends around galaxies: bends as if extra mass is present
You need to take up a study in Einstein's calculations for gravitational lensing in GR if you think light bends only due to the presence of DM. Einstein did a perfect calculation for the bending of starlight as it passes the VM peripheral disc of the Sun, he did this 20 years before Zwickey came up with the idea of cosmic fairy dust.

So when someone says Dark matter is not a hypothesis they are either lying, or don't understand basic science well enough to have an informed opinion on the matter
How is it "basic science" to believe in things for which there is no evidence it exists?

Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
As for the 'missing mass,' quantifying the amount missing does nothing to explain what it is. It doesn't even prove it's matter (though if it's something else, it'll be a hell of a shock).

We aren't just missing mass, we're missing a chunk of physics itself. Discovering it will be tremendously exciting, no matter what the answer turns out to be. In the meantime, loosen up. So long as the unknown remains unexplained, it's open season. We can talk about possibilities as much as we like.

But there are rules. I mentioned one earlier in this thread. Deutsch explains that hypotheses which are easy to vary are not good explanations. Another way to put it is, hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Otherwise they're just a lot of hand-waving and wizardry, of no use to science at all.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
Auntie wrote, "...the standard model allows majorana fermions (which are a candidate for dark matter) which would show only very weak interaction."

SM predicts neutrinos. It allows majorana fermions (which have not been found yet). But nothing in our existing physics predicts great huge masses of those particles wandering around pumping up gravitational fields in galactic neighborhoods. Where did they come from? Why are they there?

The physics we know doesn't predict those great big masses of those particles.

If the missing mass is explained by SM particles, we still need new physics to explain why they're there. And if it isn't SM particles, it's got to be new physics, too. That's why dark matter is so interesting - it's plainly telling us something we pretty well inferred already: our understanding of physics is incomplete. Filling in that hole might be empowering as well as interesting.

Maybe we'll be able to finally make real hoverboards, heh.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
The physics we know doesn't predict those great big masses of those particles.

The physics we know also doesn't predict the amount of regular mass we currently observe. SM doesn't say anything about the amount of mass that can come into being after a big bang event.

So there's argument against majorana fermions, here, either.

(Note: not having a counterargument isn't an argument FOR majorana fermions. It's just one of many possibilities that can't be excluded, yet.)

We aren't just missing mass, we're missing a chunk of physics itself.

Maybe. Maybe not. We know it behaves like mass - so let's look for something that has mass, first, before throwing stuff out prematurely (Occams Razor). It may not tickle the SciFi-nerve of some but it's a technique that has worked in science forever: slow and steady.

EyeNStein
3 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2015
Torbjorn_Larsson_OM: Nice to have a trained physicist on the thread.
However if I understand current thinking our dimensions became un-hidden and symmetries became broken, and the speed of light became a speed limit, as the very early universe cooled from above GUT energy down to an energy which we DO have equations for.
Why shouldn't matter and energy have existed before inflation in unrecognisable forms with 11 dimensions and a speed limit >>c?
It seems at least possible that matter confined to plank scale where the contracted dimensions still exist, could survive intact as 3D space inflated around it.
There isn't a theory which works at plank scale which says it couldn't is there?

Don't think that when I say 'matter' I mean the baryonic stuff we have today. I generalise the term to mean energy which is in a state of confinement rather than free to fly. In this case confined by a hypothetical ultra-strong force to be too small for our normal relatively large matter to notice.
Urgelt
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
Auntie wrote, "...let's look for something that has mass, first, before throwing stuff out prematurely (Occams Razor)."

Yes, that's perfectly sensible. I think it's fun to talk about some of the wilder possibilities, but I don't have any argument against where physicists are currently looking.

"The physics we know also doesn't predict the amount of regular mass we currently observe."

True, we can't explain the quantity without understanding the Big Bang itself.

But there is a halfway coherent explanation about what happened that more or less ties together. Big Bang. Inflation. Particle condensation and antimatter annihilation. Falling cosmic temperature. Star formation. Ionization. An expansion curve. Quite a lot about the forces of nature and particles. Problem: all of those explanations apply to visible matter and energy which can interact with visible matter. We have nothing for dark matter. There's no narrative.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2015
So, while we can agree (must agree) that physics isn't yet providing a complete explanation for visible matter, this is a much graver defect. Physics can't explain the bulk of gravitation that we observe in the universe. The universe is more about dark matter than it is about visible matter (using 'dark matter' as a placeholder here). And that means we really don't know what's going on. There must be physics beyond what we know, that that's exciting.
plasmasrevenge
1.9 / 5 (9) Sep 25, 2015
Dark matter is the ultimate challenge for academia's current approach to science, because it requires a dramatic rethink -- at the level of assumptions and hypotheses -- which academics have decided they can move forward in science today without having to ever consider. We today train physics graduate students to expand the paradigm's exemplars to fit new observations, but this has been at the expense -- and oversight -- of training these same students on when to rethink the paradigm itself.

Students are NEVER taught what to do if such a situation was to arise, because that would involve following longstanding scientific controversies. As the situation currently stands, academia ignores (and even ridicules) scientific controversies which exhibit a large divergence from the paradigm.

I've watched the numbers of people who agree on this simple point on physorg subtly rise over my time participating here.
plasmasrevenge
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
There will come an inevitable point where the set of defectors from the dark matter approach will become more vocal; the types of these defectors are going to expand to include professionals; and in due time, they will begin to organize as a group, aligned against the refusal to reconsider the initial hypothesis.

This is inevitable, and those who see it should stop trying to CONVINCE the more stubborn and gung-ho problem set recipe solvers that it's going to happen; they should instead just BEGIN this process of organization.

There's a lot of very hard work that has to be done. We have to figure out how to flip science education so that it is more controversy-centric. This will involve creating entirely new social networks that are not exclusive to just scientists; they will necessarily need to involve the public as well. Such sites do not exist yet, and it will take a long time to create them.

STOP WAITING FOR ACADEMIA TO AGREE.

Just do it, people.
jim_xanara
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
benni/returners/buggerfinger -10/5 Too fucking often

Observation: galaxies rotate in way not predicted by the visible mass You're grossly confused, Zwickey was only considering Spiral galaxies, not the majority population of Ellipticals.


That has no bearing on his point. You're grossly ignornant but you won't STFU. What sense does that make?


Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
benni/returners/buggerfinger Too fucking often


Observation: galaxies rotate in way not predicted by the visible mass
No not "galaxies", only Spiral galaxies which make up less than a 1/3 of the mass of the Universe, but I guess you don't know this. You spend so much time working on your next line of profanity that you forget about gravitational science as found in the Einstein Field Equations & his calculations for gravitational lensing based solely on the visible mass of the Sun.

You're grossly confused, Zwickey was only considering Spiral galaxies, not the majority population of Ellipticals.


That has no bearing on his point.
Sure it does, it's a gross omission on his part that he can't explain why 75-90% of the Sun is missing if there is no gravity field emanating from the Sun to buttress his point.

You're grossly ignornant but you won't STFU.
About the gravity field of the Sun for the calculation of gravitational lensing?

plasmasrevenge
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
Re: "We aren't just missing mass, we're missing a chunk of physics itself. Discovering it will be tremendously exciting, no matter what the answer turns out to be."

I have to disagree with this assumption that discovery is always exciting to people. You are probably projecting. Your excitement certainly cannot be said to apply to all situations. There are many ends to this story which will leave many people angry, believe it or not, and given that so much effort has already gone into checking the more palatable explanations, that is looking like the more likely result, at this point.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 25, 2015
We aren't just missing mass, we're missing a chunk of physics itself.


Only true if it is testable that intergalactic "distance physics" is different than our solar system "local physics".

Extending to the entire Universe conclusions based on the rotation behavior of one third of the visible mass in the form of Spiral galaxies is not rational science. We observe no such gravitational behavior locally & Einstein Field Equations prove it mathematically.

indio007
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2015
MUST..... SAVE...... Einstein!!!!!

or in the alternative.... The Emperors New Clothes.
rgw
1 / 5 (1) Sep 25, 2015
I wonder if beings in the dark matter universe can see us? Maybe our observable matter/energy is just part of an invisible small portion of reality..
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 25, 2015
We have nothing for dark matter. There's no narrative.

There's still no narrative for other things (antimatter/matter imbalance for one). When we get condensation of matter we might as well get condensation of 'dark matter'. That's what they're trying to look at because in the early universe it should still be in a state where there was substantial interaction.
There's plenty of 'room' for adding stuff we don't know about without dropping the standard model.

all of those explanations apply to visible matter and energy which can interact with visible matter.

Reason being: we didn't know about dark matter until very recently - so there was no attempt to build a narrative. So I don't find it surprising that the current one doesn't include it.

It's a bit like QM: As long as people weren't aware of quantummechanical effects all the narratives were mechanistic/deterministic. QM still fits very well with these despite not having been taken into account at first.
Benni
3 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
Reason being: we didn't know about dark matter until very recently


Zwickey proposed it in the 1930's........Is that "recent" to you? Or do you mean within the context of what has more recently become a continually evolving Standard Model of Cosmology?

Urgelt
not rated yet Sep 25, 2015
Auntie wrote, "There's still no narrative for other things (antimatter/matter imbalance for one). When we get condensation of matter we might as well get condensation of 'dark matter'. That's what they're trying to look at because in the early universe it should still be in a state where there was substantial interaction."

If dark matter is particles, then yep. That's the favored idea behind most hypotheses for dark matter.

"There's plenty of 'room' for adding stuff we don't know about without dropping the standard model."

I'm not proposing to drop SM. Did you think I was?

SM might need to be refined, but it's still an absurdly successful model.

Here's a random question: might dark matter gravitation give us a quantitative clue as to the matter-antimatter imbalance at annihilation? Could there be a connection?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 25, 2015
@verkle
The statements are not "contradictory". Now, if the difference was that dark matter comprised 1 million times the amount of ordinary matter, you may have a point. 83% vs 17% is similar in size when you consider the possible range that those numbers might have been - such as 99.999999% vs 0.000001%, for example.


The question is why are the numbers so close in size when they could have been much, much, much farther apart.


Dividing 83% DM by 17% VM = 4.88 times more DM than VM, nearly five times more DM than VM,

Where did you learn your concept of statistics as to vividly imagine 5 times more of one thing than another is an almost meaningless quantitative factor? You wouldn't get a job working in any lab facility using your concept of the level of quantitative analyses that you think is scientifically appropriate.

Urgelt
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
Benni, I don't think he meant to say the difference is meaningless. But it's in the same order of magnitude, and given the range of orders of magnitude operant in physics, that's interesting in itself.

Whatever dark matter is, it's strange. But it's not so strange as to occupy a completely different order of magnitude from visible matter. There may be a clue in there as to what's going on.
docile
Sep 26, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
clue as to the matter-antimatter imbalance at annihilation? Could there be a connection?

Since everything in the universe is connected the trivial answer is: yes.

The non-trivial answer is: with the current knowledge base that can't be answered. We'll just have to wait and see. But once it's found you can be sure that scientists will look for a connection to this (and many other) problems. That's what scientists do, after all: take the known and poke at the unknown with it.
Osiris1
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
Maybe this 'dark QCD' force could be useful if able to be harnessed. I would be a true fifth force, and maybe related to the gravitational force in some way. Especially seeing as gravity does seem to interact with dark matter whilst no other forces seem to at present day conditions.
Urgelt
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
Auntie, of course in the sense that everything is connected, there is a connection. You're correct, that's trivial. I was thinking of something a bit more direct.

Annihilation yields energy and particles (such as neutrinos, but maybe not limited to them). What's left over is visible matter and... something else, perhaps. Dark matter might be a product not merely of condensation but specifically of annihilation - particles which did not exist until annihilation produced them.

If annihilation did produce dark matter, that might serve to constrain what sorts of particles it could be, eh?

I'm not in love with the idea. I'm just tossing it out to see how hard it gets busted. Feel free to swat it down.
Urgelt
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
Wikipedia (yes, I do use it, I'm dumb) says:

"During a low-energy annihilation, photon production is favored, since these particles have no mass. However, high-energy particle colliders produce annihilations where a wide variety of exotic heavy particles are created."

Annihilation after the Big Bang would have been of the high-energy sort, obviously. But I don't know of any studies which hypothesize which particles other than photons might have been produced, or in what amounts. (Then again, I don't read every study or article.)

I'm sure most exotic particles produced in our colliders have very short half-lives. But *something* stable ends up being produced (photons, but maybe something more). Maybe that's where we should be looking for dark matter.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2015
I'm sure most exotic particles produced in our colliders have very short half-lives. But *something* stable ends up being produced (photons but maybe something more).Maybe that's where we should be looking for dark matter.


And scientists have discovered short duration particles called the Higgs-boson. If Hadron can uncover the ultimate particle from which EVERYTHING ELSE is made, then it should have also revealed DM which must by definition of the Hboson must also the basic particle building block for DM. If you don't believe this, then the Visible Matter Hboson is in fact not what Hadron scientists in Cern claim it is, the ultimate particle.

If the Hboson is the foundation on which all matter is built, this is contradictory to the existence of DM, contradictory because how does the VM Hboson morph itself from visibility to invisibility? For DM to be invisible it must start with an invisible particle base, that belies the Hboson basis to be the ultimate particle.

Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
Benni, the Higgs can be detected as a short-lived particle at very high energies. That it could be found at those energies was predicted by SM. But in the cooler universe in which we live, Higgs is thought to be a pervasive quantum field whose interactions confer mass to gauge bosons (photons, w and z bosons and gluons).. That field is invisible to our instruments.

The Higgs boson has never been proclaimed to be 'the basic building block of matter' by quantum physicists. Your reasoning from that starting point fails because that's not what quantum physicists are telling us.

Your argument is therefore a straw man: you put words in physicists' mouths and then denounce them. Needless to say, that is not how science proceeds, and you are not presenting a scientific view. You're in crank territory, Benni. Not a good place to be.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
The Higgs boson has never been proclaimed to be 'the basic building block of matter' by quantum physicists. Your reasoning from that starting point fails because that's not what quantum physicists are telling us.
.....it's my reasoning because that's what Higgs has been telling us all these years, since the 80's or 90's.

Your argument is therefore a straw man
I don't have an argument, my point being that DM has never been found in the Hadron therefore undermining any possibility it can exist apart from the presence of the Hboson, that's not a strawman, that's reality.

you put words in physicists' mouths and then denounce them
I didn't, I simply have not disagreed with them that the Hboson is the infamous "god-particle", you're the one disagreeing with them.

you are not presenting a scientific view. You're in crank territory, Benni.Not a good place to be
Crank territory is your disagreeing the Hboson is not what acclaimed physicists claim.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
Consensus physics does not describe the Higgs Bosun as a ';God particle.'

We don't know what DM is. It has mass, but many particles obtain mass outside of the Higgs mechanism.

You are still constructing a straw man of quantum physics based on your misunderstanding of what they are telling us.

I think you could stand to read more and pontificate less, Benni.
Irukanji
1 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2015
If 99%+ of the universe is hydrogen, is it absurd to think neutrons are dark matter?
Urgelt
4 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2015
Hydrogen accounts for about 74% of visible matter by mass

Yes, it is absurd to think neutrons are the dark matter, physicists are telling us. Neutrons interact readily with light. If cosmological light were passing through that many neutrons, we would see evidence in it in absorption spectra.

Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 26, 2015
Any theory of the "unknown" as a basis of verification of existing theory, is an effort on Tom Foolery!
Benni
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2015
Consensus physics does not describe the Higgs Bosun as a ';God particle
Consensus physics doesn't agree with Peter Higgs? So what if some imaginative majority may not agree with Higgs, but they haven't disproven his original thesis either.

We don't know what DM is. It has mass
How do you know this? You got a bottle of the stuff sitting next to your keyboard & you can weigh out out for us?

but many particles obtain mass outside of the Higgs mechanism
Like Furlong from a couple weeks ago, who claimed on this very subject that he was smarter than Higgs in his final assessments of the meaning of the discovery of the Hboson. Now you too know more about the "mechanism" than Higgs? Tell us what you know.

You are still constructing a straw man of quantum physics based on your misunderstanding of what they are telling us
You're the one claiming to know more than Peter Higgs, all the straw is in your corral.

barakn
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
Hydrogen accounts for about 74% of visible matter by mass

Yes, it is absurd to think neutrons are the dark matter, physicists are telling us. Neutrons interact readily with light.
No, they don't.
If cosmological light were passing through that many neutrons, we would see evidence in it in absorption spectra.

No, we would see nothing. Free neutrons have a half-life of 10 minutes.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2015
Benni, for God's sake, do a little reading. Start with Wikipedia's article on the Higg's Mechanism:

https://en.wikipe...echanism
matt_s
5 / 5 (4) Sep 27, 2015
Shhhh Urg, Benni doesn't realize the media sensationalized the Higgs as the god particle. If you're trying to communicate with him you need to put all your information in differential equation form. But avoid ODEs, he doesn't know what those are.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
Would entropic gravity qualify as a new theory? Here gravity is the gradient of entropy. Regions of spacetime containing matter would have more entropy than regions without matter, I think it's safe to say. Therefore we have gravity between regions of variable entropy. However the pressure of the vacuum would have its own variability under the pressure of the dark energy. Variability is not an excuse for anything in the macro world. It's unavoidable. Just as uncertainty is unavoidable in the micro world. However variability in the vacuum seems to occur on the galactic level, not that it doesn't exist within galaxies, it's just too small to be detected with our current measurement techniques. This variability is going to affect the entropy of different regions of spacetime just like matter does. So a better term for the subject is dark gravity, certainly not dark matter.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
barakn asserts that neutrons do not interact readily with light.

This is wrong. Neutrons are only electrically neutral *on average.* Within, a neutron consists of charged particles. Photons in certain wavelengths will interact with them.

barakn goes on to inform us that free neutrons have a half-life of ten minutes. This is true, insofar as we can discover in particle accelerators. The fact of it implies that free neutrons as we understand them cannot make up very much, if any, of the dark matter that is out there.

As we do not know what dark matter is, we are free to spin hair-on-fire speculations. One such speculation is that neutrons can somehow end up in a stabilized condition, such that their half-life is billions of years or more. That would violate the SM, of course, but SM violations are exactly where physicists are looking for dark matter.

But if free neutrons were the missing mass, they would leave spectra footprints.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
Seeker2, you phrased your hypothesis as a question. Congratulations! You have evaded being lumped in with the cranks, who rarely pose questions, preferring instead to voice utter certainty that they are right and scientists, the fools, are wrong.

Your hypothesis would place the sources of extra gravity in the deepest vacuum between galaxies. That is not, alas, what we observe. It tends to clump where visible matter is. We would see very different orbital mechanics if deep vacuum was exerting a gravitational force on galaxies and galaxy clusters.

Strange to say, cosmologists have been able to map where the gunk is. They just can't tell us what it is yet.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Sep 27, 2015
Your hypothesis would place the sources of extra gravity in the deepest vacuum between galaxies.
Wrong hypothesis. Sorry about that. The sources of extra gravity is within the galaxies, and the filaments between the galaxies.
jag217
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
There ar
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 27, 2015
The sources of extra gravity is within the galaxies, and the filaments between the galaxies.
Actually, to be more specific, within the environs of the galaxies.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
The measurement of mass using E = MC^2 is an error. First there does not exist anything such as mass, only a superposition of the elements, electron and proton. I prefer only a "+" and a "-", as you can see, like charges will be completely elastics, like it matters, and unlike charges may even be transparent, as if that matters. However none require mass. Anyway, this is derived from h nu = E, and deBroglie, lambda = h/p, some sort of QM measure, using energy containment, measured by quanta, another ambiguous measure. It has nothing to do with "weight or "mass" only the +/-q, as seen from the wave function. The Emperor, has no clothes! Try a 4D unit-less space, the best way to express the Pointing Vector, using units that map to lambda for each axis. Then each set of plys for each particle or the field at any point at any instant, since the "+" and the "-" are neither created or destroyed. Try this instead of lurking around looking for 'Dark Matter"! Missing mass never there!
EnsignFlandry
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
How after fictional chaotic big bang favorite to pseudo scientific gang are emerged equal number of protons and electrons in the universe?


Yes.
swordsman
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
The "vacuum of space" has known electromagnetic interaction properties, in contradiction to the statement:

"Dark matter makes up 83 percent of all matter in the universe and does not interact directly with electromagnetic or strong and weak nuclear forces."

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
balslev
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
One thing that is easy to read from the comments, is, that the most commentators are sick and tired of such bizarre theories. The fact is that both Einstein's relativity, and the Minkowski space-time are wrong.
This can bee seen from, e.g., the existence of the zero-point field, which is verified by the Casimir effect. Stefan Marinov's measurement of an experimental set-up relative to the zero-point field to 362±40 km/s, WMAP's measurements of of the speed of our local group of galaxies to 369±0.9 km/s relative to the zero-point field. Furthermore, Einstein's relativity is wrong, as it says: when you look at me, I shrink, and when I look at you, you shrink, so we both shrink, and secondly since the EM-waves that hold the atoms together, according to Einstein's relativity follows an inertial system, there can't arise any length contractions.
As Einstein's relativity is wrong, the space is Euclidean, so Big Bang took, according to FinalTheories, place in an existing Universe.
Benni
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
The sources of extra gravity is within the galaxies, and the filaments between the galaxies.
Actually, to be more specific, within the environs of the galaxies.


The concept of DM was hypothesized in the 1930's by Zwickey as counter gravitational field keeping arms of Spiral galaxies from flying apart at their mean speeds of 200-3000 km/s, this as compared to the mean speeds of outer orbitals stars in Eliptical galaxies which were obseved to be 2 km/s. Zwickey positioned DM such that DM created an envelope surrounding Spiral galaxies, never contained inside of them. These days the entire hypotheses is so turned on it's head as to be just so much inane nonsense for anyone to figure out it's morphology into meaninglessness devoid of any science.
Urgelt
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
Balslev wrote, "As Einstein's relativity is wrong, the space is Euclidean, so Big Bang took, according to Final Theories, place in an existing Universe."

Cranks deliver answers with absolute conviction.

You're way too certain to fit anywhere but in crankland, balslev.

That's unfortunate, because you are raising several points I'd very much like to see explored.

SR's reciprocity should be nailed down with experimental evidence to be regarded as 'true.' That hasn't happened yet, so far as I am aware.

Euclidean space is flat. Spacetime curves; the evidence for that is solid. But relativity's frames are problematic anyway. The universe keeps perfect track of all of its objects in space and time, relative to all other objects. There must be an absolute frame. Einstein just wished it away.

I think our understanding of spacetime needs work. But let's not assume we know the answers just yet.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 28, 2015
Zwickey positioned DM such that DM created an envelope surrounding Spiral galaxies, never contained inside of them. These days the entire hypotheses is so turned on it's head as to be just so much inane nonsense for anyone to figure out it's morphology into meaninglessness devoid of any science.
Yep. I'd rather go with entropic gravity, where the source of gravity is a different entropy in the environs of the galaxy, actually a region of lower vacuum pressure, sometimes referred to as a sink, like when there is a black hole at the center of the galaxy sucking up matter and radiation. I'm not sure about black holes in elliptical galaxies. In this case the whole galaxy could be the sink.
balslev
not rated yet Sep 28, 2015
Urtelt wrote, "SR's reciprocity should be nailed down .. "

SR's reciprocity stems from Einstein's two postulates, that is the basis for general relativity, and the space-time continuum:
(1) Principle of relativity (Galileo): No experiment can measure the absolute velocity of an observer; the results of any experiment performed by an observer do not depend on his speed relative to other observers who are not involved in the experiment.
(2) Universality of the speed of light (Einstein): The speed of light relative to any unaccelerated observer is c = 3 × 108 ms−1, regardless of the motion of the light's source relative to the observer.

Yes, I am quite certain that the Big Bang took place in an existing Euclidean Universe. It explains what was before the Big Bang, where the energy came from, how the quasars could be created just after Big Bang, where the high metal contents came from, where the big structures, the dark matter, and dark energy came from, and much more.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 28, 2015
Euclidean space is flat. Spacetime curves; the evidence for that is solid.
Yes it does but note I thought I read somewhere that spacetime curvature as measured by the cosmological constant is almost exactly 1 in which case spacetime curvature overall is flat.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 28, 2015
Yes, I am quite certain that the Big Bang took place in an existing Euclidean Universe. It explains what was before the Big Bang, where the energy came from, how the quasars could be created just after Big Bang, where the high metal contents came from, where the big structures, the dark matter, and dark energy came from, and much more.
Wow. All this comes from Einstein's two postulates?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2015
Ok, the "+" and the "-" exist. The Poynting vector of the field in 4D from any other observable point obeys coulomb. The field of every particle has existed for as long as the particle. The particle defines itself as a sphere at every point in time. The previous point is contained within the previous Poynting Vector, the existing point is a superposition of the previous with updated position and field attributes. The magnitude at each point is simple the summation over the pertinent plys available at that point and are defined at that point from the previous point. In other words, this is a description of a container without changing the number of particles, with or without an applied field. You may also superimposed new particles at any given state and position, but any instantaneous introduction is only theoretical. So experiments must understand the particular stability point of interest. So if any dark matter exist outside this definition, I would suspect my thinking.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2015
Cranks deliver answers with absolute conviction.

You're way too certain to fit anywhere but in crankland


Urgeit, you have delivered with absolute conviction the existence of DM, so tell us:

-Does it exist in an envelope surrounding only Spiral galaxies as Zwickey originally proposed?
-Does it exist within the radial arms (filaments) of Spiral galaxies as never proposed by Zwickey?
-Does it exist inside Elliptical galaxies & why would you think so?
-Does it exist in our spiral arm of the MW?
-Why can't we find evidence for it inside our solar system if it makes up 75-90% of the Universe?
-Can you explain why our solar system is exempted from the 75-90% rule?
-Do you consider all the above as the questions of a "crank"?

Urgelt
5 / 5 (7) Sep 28, 2015
Benni wrote, "Urgelt, you have delivered with absolute conviction the existence of DM, so tell us..."

Don't go there, Benni. DM is a placeholder term for something observed but unexplained. The observations are facts. You don't have to 'believe' in DM. All you have to do is look at the observations.

All of the hypotheses ventured thus far for DM are unsupported by evidence. I don't 'believe' any of them. I am suspending judgment pending evidence, which physicists are earnestly trying to find. You should, too.

We can have fun 'what-if' conversations about DM hypotheses. But when you come to the discussion with certainty about the answers, you betray yourself as an anti-science crank.
j_remillard
1 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2015
Evolution of life may help detect Dark Matter: life molecules adapt to the environment - therefore - because life exists in the presence of Dark Matter then the DNA of some creatures should/could possibly have already incorporated the utilization of Dark Matter to give them an advantage? Certainly seems a path to search - just in case
.
balslev
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
No! Seeker2, on the contrary! Einstein's postulates led later to general relativity, that is the reason for that we can't explain anything about the Cosmos.

Einstein's special relativity (1905) that rests on Einstein's two postulates (which today both are known to be wrong) lead together with Minkowski space-time (1907) (that only has a value if the time isn't universal) to Einstein's general relativity (1915). Since gravitation according to general relativity is a result of the curvature of space-time, the Big Bang must start as a singularity at time zero. It means that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang, so nobody knows what initiated the Big Bang, and where the energy came from. Since there wasn't any "old" matter at the time of Big Bang, the theory can't explain the fast evolution of stars, black holes, galaxies, and quasars, and it cannot explain the high metal content of the early stars, the dark matter, and the B-polarization.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
the theory can't explain the fast evolution of stars, black holes, galaxies, and quasars, and it cannot explain the high metal content of the early stars, the dark matter, and the B-polarization.
I was thinking there was a GR solution leading to black holes.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
there was a GR solution leading to black holes.
Maybe it was just the singularity, which we know doesn't exist from quantum mechanics.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2015
I imagine a stealth air plane from high tech dark matter. Absolutely invisible. Even for the pilot.
inkosana
1 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2015
If they would only derive the equations for the Doppler-effect correctly (not in terms of the impossible concept of time dilation) for the geometry involved, they will find that the speed of stars in a galaxy DOES fall off with distance from the centre as is required by Newton's law of gravity. No dark matter needs to be invoked at all. The only WIMPS we have are the "particle physicists" themselves.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
there was a GR solution leading to black holes.
Maybe it was just the singularity, which we know doesn't exist from quantum mechanics.
Clarification at http://journals.a...06930977
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2015
Benni wrote, "Urgelt, you have delivered with absolute conviction the existence of DM, so tell us..."


DM is a placeholder term for something observed but unexplained. The observations are facts
What factual observations?

All of the hypotheses ventured thus far for DM are unsupported by evidence. I don't 'believe' any of them.
If you don't believe any of the hypotheses & that all of the hypothesis are unsupported by the EVIDENCE, then what EVIDENCE are you referring to? You are holding secret evidence in a placeholder to which only you are privy?

I am suspending judgment pending evidence. You should, too. We can have fun 'what-if' conversations about DM hypotheses. But when you come to the discussion with certainty about the answers, you betray yourself as an anti-science crank.
An "anti-science crank" is someone who believes things exist for which that same person states there is no evidence, exactly what you have stated about yourself.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
Benni wrote, " .

Don't get it. Define each point of your space time based upon every object that exist! Then define a supposition, based upon what you do not know!? Use any sort of isomorphic space-time to fit the ... what? To whom are we addressing this? Nonsense! Gotta be on the Onion! "Hi, ya'll! holla' out to ... "
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Sep 29, 2015
Benni wrote, " .

Don't get it. Define each point of your space time based upon every object that exist! Then define a supposition, based upon what you do not know!? Use any sort of isomorphic space-time to fit the ... what? To whom are we addressing this? Nonsense! Gotta be on the Onion! "Hi, ya'll! holla' out to ... "

no dis respect, i'm black, so you know da' luv ... maybe take be back to an Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic written in stone, "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

So, juz say'n DM is wack!
inkosana
4 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2015
DM is a placeholder term for something observed but unexplained. The observations are facts
The only facts are that when you measure the frequency shifts of light emitted by stars circling the centre of a galaxy, this shift in frequency is MEASURED not to fall off with radial distance. If you take these measurements at face value and assume that the radial Doppler equation applies, you find that the speeds apparently do not fall off with radial distance; as they should when Newton's law of gravity applies.

BUT the radial Doppler formula DOES NOT apply. When deriving the lateral Doppler formula CORRECTLY (Not the derivation found in text books which are based on the absurd concept of time dilation) and then fit the experimental data, it is found that the speed does actually fall off with distance. Thus Dark Matter or MOND are not required to explain these measurements. The analysis of these measurements has all along been WRONG!

Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
the Big Bang must start as a singularity at time zero. It means that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang, so nobody knows what initiated the Big Bang, and where the energy came from.
I'm thinking there is a solution to GR where the energy came from a parallel universe through a wormhole. Perhaps also the dark energy when the black hole in the parallel universe starts feeding. Working on it.
inkosana
5 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2015
the Big Bang must start as a singularity at time zero. It means that there wasn't any time before the Big Bang, so nobody knows what initiated the Big Bang, and where the energy came from.
I'm thinking there is a solution to GR where the energy came from a parallel universe through a wormhole. Perhaps also the dark energy when the black hole in the parallel universe starts feeding. Working on it.
This solves Nothing! Where does the parallel universe comes from?
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2015
The observations are facts

The only facts are that when you measure the frequency shifts of light emitted by stars circling the centre of a galaxy, this shift in frequency is MEASURED not to fall off with radial distance. If you take these measurements at face value and assume that the radial Doppler equation applies, you find that the speeds apparently do not fall off with radial distance


Are you referring to Spiral or Elliptical galaxies?

it is found that the speed does actually fall off with distance. Thus Dark Matter or MOND are not required to explain these measurements. The analysis of these measurements has all along been WRONG!


There is a distinguishing difference between the outer orbital speeds (2 km/s) of stars in Ellipticals vs. the rotation rate of radial arms (200 km/s) for Spirals, this is where the controversy comes in. Obviously Ellipticals do not need a counterbalancing gravity to keep them from flying apart,
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
This solves Nothing! Where does the parallel universe comes from?
A closed set of universes comes from nothing. A closed set would be a set of universes which do not transfer energy to any other universes outside the set. If they came from something, then where would this something come from?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
Are you referring to Spiral or Elliptical galaxies?
Spiral

There is a distinguishing difference between the outer orbital speeds (2 km/s) of stars in Ellipticals vs. the rotation rate of radial arms (200 km/s) for Spirals, this is where the controversy comes in. Obviously Ellipticals do not need a counterbalancing gr
I am glad to hear this since to derive the correct speed from the Doppler-effect, one must know the direction in which a star moves relative to the observation position. In spiral galaxies the outer stars do NOT move radially away from the observation position. Can you tell me in which directions the stars within an elliptical galaxy are moving away from the observation position?
inkosana
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
This solves Nothing! Where does the parallel universe comes from?
A closed set of universes comes from nothing. A closed set would be a set of universes which do not transfer energy to any other universes outside the set. If they came from something, then where would this something come from?
This is mathematical claptrap.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
This is mathematical claptrap.
Sorry about the claptrap. It could be that there are no sets of closed universes., like they could all be connected, like the filaments between galaxies.
Seeker2
not rated yet Sep 30, 2015
This is mathematical claptrap.
Sorry about the claptrap. Could it be that all universes are connected, like the filaments between galaxies?
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2015
Are you referring to Spiral or Elliptical galaxies?
Spiral


There is a distinguishing difference between the outer orbital speeds (2 km/s) of stars in Ellipticals vs. the rotation rate of radial arms (200 km/s) for Spirals, this is where the controversy comes in. Obviously Ellipticals do not need a counterbalancing gr
I am glad to hear this since to derive the correct speed from the Doppler-effect, one must know the direction in which a star moves relative to the observation position. In spiral galaxies the outer stars do NOT move radially away from the observation position. Can you tell me in which directions the stars within an elliptical galaxy are moving away from the observation position?


I understand redshift & blueshift parameters by which astrophysicists calculate speeds & direction at which stellar objects are moving. What do you mean by: "outer Stars do not move radially away from the observation position"?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2015
DM is a placeholder term

No need for a placeholder term. pick a line, say the hydrogen line, then the speed of the wavelet: length divided by time. Time to pass is 1/nu, relative to a single single point in space, as the description of the expansion of a globe about the emitter, using a single wavelet, with a Poynting vector at this point of observation of sight and the emitter at the center, is a speed for the wavelet to pass this point is w = c * lambda_emitted/lambda_observed. Therefore, the expected deviation is ...
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2015
I understand redshift & blueshift parameters by which astrophysicists calculate speeds & direction at which stellar objects are moving. What do you mean by: "outer Stars do not move radially away from the observation position"?
The measurements were made on spiral galaxies where the centre of the galaxy is assumed to move away (or towards) the observation-position on earth. At a radial position, a star is moving parallel to the line that connects the position on earth and the position of the centre of the galaxy. This changes the formula that must be used to calculate the speed of the star since the star is not radially moving away from the position on earth. The calculations of the speeds of the stars have been done as if the radial Doppler formula applies in all cases. That is why the drop of the speeds which actually occurs seems to be as if there is no drop-off in the speed. It is easy to prove this, but editors refuse to publish it.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2015
It is easy to prove this, but editors refuse to publish it.
Probably mathematical claptrap.
Benni
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2015
I understand redshift & blueshift parameters by which astrophysicists calculate speeds & direction at which stellar objects are moving. What do you mean by: "outer Stars do not move radially away from the observation position"?
The measurements were made on spiral galaxies where the centre of the galaxy is assumed to move away (or towards) the observation-position on earth. At a radial position, a star is moving parallel to the line that connects the position on earth and the position of the centre of the galaxy.This changes the formula that must be used to calculate the speed of the star since the star is not radially moving away from the position on earth.The calculations of the speeds of the stars have been done as if the radial Doppler formula applies in all cases. That is why the drop of the speeds which actually occurs seems to be as if there is no drop-off in the speed. It is easy to prove this but editors refuse to publish it
I see your point, makes sense.
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2015
It is easy to prove this, but editors refuse to publish it.
Probably mathematical claptrap.
I can send you the manuscript and then you can "prove" where it is claptrap. Since I am a REAL scientist, who still believes in the rules that the founders of the Royal Society formulated. I NEVER judge ANYTHING on probabilities. I so wish that people like YOU will start to act responsibly. No wonder modern physics has become a joke!
inkosana
not rated yet Oct 02, 2015
I see your point, makes sense
Thank you Benni.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (2) Oct 02, 2015
[
The measurements were made on spiral galaxies ... if there is no drop-off in the speed. It is easy to prove this, but editors refuse to publish it.
Need a description of each physical and spectral location at different points of observation. Expect any thin volume of a spherical or ellipsoidal shell to act as a single body and comply with superposition. So would you not require polarization. Also the alignment of the ellipsoid is due to what? The individual field is there. Find all the frequency shifts for each identifiable transmission; but assume each possess the "body" motion, remove that; then, compute the relative spectral density based upon spectral location. This band should describe a continuous band-based upon the difference in motion of the body and the location of the emitter relative to the body. So your collector will require a finely tooled spectral width at the line of observation. In an in-hogeneous media this all depends upon instrumentation.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 02, 2015
Present publication of any claim is suspect. We have not defined methodology nor correct basis on theory, acceptable to logic, math, and the general population! We only see what we think we see. As a scientist I see only 2 charges poorly defined and a description of multiple possibilities to describe anomalies within existing ideas. I prefer a 4D space-time, filled with only these unknown things, "+" and "-" with attributes defined by Maxwell using a mathematical isomorphic space-time with each axis defined as lambda from lambda nu = c, however unit-less. Note the E field may be expressed analogously as length, or simply the location of a ghost particle within a proximity to create the field at the center of each charge. It obey's, therefore classical physics, Maxwell, and ignores others. It is completely Euclidean, real and perfectly isomorphic, with proper attributes, too nature, reality.
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2015
@Hyperfuzzy: I do not understand why you go into a frenzy before doing your homework! This is the mark of an incompetent scientist Send me your e-mail and I will send you the manuscript: If you promise to analyse it objectively, which I expect would be impossible for you to do. I am not willing to argue on your WRONG speculations and inability to understand geometry that Is already more than 3000 years old. Minkowski's space time is impossible since it violates The Theorem of Pythogoras Minkowski claims that when one has that s^2=(ct)^2-x^2, s can be the hypotenuse in (ct,x) space. This is impossible since according to the Theorem of Pythagoras this equation MUST mean that (ct) is the hypotenuse. Why is I]t impossible for 20th Century theoretical physicists to understand the Theorem of Pythagoras? Are they all brainless?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2015
@Hyperfuzzy: ... Are they all brainless?


You misunderstand, I agree. From simpler analysis. First how fast does a wavelet pass you of known length. Give me the equation for speed. Anyway, much more is without reason. The space I defined is defined by a unit-less real mathematical Euclidean space-time and completely metaphorical to Maxwell. The unit lambda nu = c, is a tautology within our space-time, so the unit is metaphorically the same. Simply pick a unit, the location of a sphere about what "+" or "-" in 4D space. Any point but the particle center receives the field from what point of this space-time. Simple superposition. Total field calculable, with built end memory for the last point and future points all within your chosen volume and particle containment. With a simulator, then set any initial condition you wish. Simply define reality. Don't see it mathematically, see it mathematically and visually. Pick your colors, 3D, glasses, we can display that.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2015
One thought I have before I place the entire theory onto a share using the cloud; theoretically, it is NOT a necessary condition that the "+" or the "-" point have volume or elasticity and transparent as a physical "thing". The only single truth is "The "+" and "-" exist." We see them only isomorphically, or in human speak metaphorically. . .

Any metaphor? dunno .. Note, the metaphor within the entire idea of Dark Matter and the God metaphor. Only Dr. E was smart, but only played with mathematics. Not wisdom of math!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Oct 03, 2015
i meant to say "isomorphic to Maxwell"
inkosana
5 / 5 (1) Oct 04, 2015
Dear Hyperfuzzy: I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Maybe I am slow, although my CV can prove that I am not, but I find no logic in your posts other than that you are hallucinating. Try and argue real physics!
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 13, 2015
I NEVER judge ANYTHING on probabilities.
Nothing in the micro or macro world is completely deterministic. Check out quantum mechanics.
inkosana
1 / 5 (1) Oct 14, 2015
@Seeker2 : If you imply that ONLY probabilities exist until you make a measurement, then you are wrong: Not just wrong but mentally disturbed. Yes a measurement can disturb what exists and the disturbance can cause different outcomes owing to resonance interactions of the wave with its surroundings. But this does not mean that a matter-wave and a light-wave has an intensity which is a probability-distribution. Both are simply electromagnetic-waves which must have an intensity distribution that is proportional to the wave's EM energy-distribution.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 14, 2015
Dear Hyperfuzzy: I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Maybe I am slow, although my CV can prove that I am not, but I find no logic in your posts other than that you are hallucinating. Try and argue real physics!

Sounds like a chapter of Alice in Wonder Land. Tweedledee and Tweedledum had the same conversation. Anyway, lack of understanding does not supply a disproof. It's simple, think about it. Throw away your preconceptions. Took me about 30 years to "get it" There is only something we call positive and negative; exactly what does that mean? See, simple! Oh! Bottom up!
inkosana
not rated yet Oct 15, 2015
Dear Hyperfuzzy: I cannot understand what you are trying to say. Maybe I am slow, although my CV can prove that I am not, but I find no logic in your posts other than that you are hallucinating. Try and argue real physics!

Sounds like a chapter of Alice in Wonder Land. Tweedledee and Tweedledum had the same conversation. Anyway, lack of understanding does not supply a disproof. It's simple, think about it. Throw away your preconceptions. Took me about 30 years to "get it" There is only something we call positive and negative; exactly what does that mean? See, simple! Oh! Bottom up!


And after 30 years you are still drinking tea with the Mad Hatter. If you have something to say about positive and negative: SAY IT!
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 15, 2015


And after 30 years you are still drinking tea with the Mad Hatter. If you have something to say about positive and negative: SAY IT!


No, think I'll leave the fantasy to you. Dark matter! LOL!
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 29, 2015
@Seeker2 : If you imply that ONLY probabilities exist until you make a measurement, then you are wrong: Not just wrong but mentally disturbed
Yes probabilities refer only to the results of the measurement. Uncertainty might be a better term.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 30, 2015
probabilities refer only to the results of the measurement. Uncertainty might be a better term.
Note the observed probability distribution is some conflation of quantum uncertainty and measurement uncertainty.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 30, 2015
@Seeker2 : If you imply that ONLY probabilities exist until you make a measurement, then you are wrong: Not just wrong but mentally disturbed.
For example take the cat in the box. Must get a bit stuffy in there. If it's been in there for a month or so, its probability of being found alive would seem to be pretty slim. Famous Hawking quote - "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
Read more at http://www.brainy...Y7sir.99
whereupon he left himself open to the charge of believing in God. Now that would be disturbing.

Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 30, 2015
@Seeker2 : If you imply that ONLY probabilities exist until you make a measurement, then you are wrong: Not just wrong but mentally disturbed.
For example the cat in the box. Must be a get a bit stuffy in there. Anyway if you leave it there long enough its probability of being found alive is pretty slim. Famous Einstein quote - "Not only does God play dice, but... he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen."
Read more at http://www.brainy...Y7sir.99
which left him vulnerable to the question of does he believe in God. Now that would be disturbing.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 30, 2015
sorry duplicate.

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.