Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle

The origin of matter in the universe has puzzled physicists for generations. Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter. And the remaining 70% is made up of dark energy. Dark matter itself represents an unsolved riddle.

Physicists believe that such dark is composed of (as yet undefined) elementary particles that stick together thanks to gravitational force. In a study recently published in EPJ C, scientists from the CRESST-II research project use the so-called phonon-light technique to detect dark matter. They are the first to use a detection probe that operates with such a low trigger threshold, which yields suitable sensitivity levels to uncover the as-yet elusive particles responsible for dark matter.

Until quite recently, the so-called WIMP - Weakly Interacting Massive Particle - was the preferred candidate for a new elementary particle to explain dark matter. However, the asymmetric dark matter particle models have attracted more and more interest in the past few years. The experimental detection is no different from the scattering of two billiard balls, as the particle scatters on an atomic nucleus. The detection method is based on the fact that the scattering would heat up a calcium tungstate (CaWO4) crystal.

The challenge: the lighter the dark matter particle is, the smaller the energy deposited in the crystal is. Currently, no other direct dark matter search method has a threshold for nuclear recoils as low as 0.3 kiloelectronVolt (keV). As such, the CRESST-II team are the first to ever probe particle masses at such low mass scale (below one GeV/c^2-as far as 0.5GeV/c^2). The next-generation CRESST-III detector is currently being upgraded and promises to reach thresholds of 100 electronVolts (eV), following successful tests of prototypes.


Explore further

New detectors allow search for lightweight dark matter particles

More information: G. Angloher et al. Results on light dark matter particles with a low-threshold CRESST-II detector, The European Physical Journal C (2016). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-3877-3

G. Angloher et al. Results on low mass WIMPs using an upgraded CRESST-II detector, The European Physical Journal C (2014). DOI: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-3184-9

Provided by Springer
Citation: Bright sparks shed new light on the dark matter riddle (2016, February 1) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-02-bright-dark-riddle.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
76 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 01, 2016
Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe;


B.S. We don't know that, what lousy science journalism.

Feb 01, 2016
B.S. We don't know that

Eh, we kinda do. it would be better stated "that matter only accounts for 5% of the gravitational interaction in our universe"

Which begs the question, is there really DM/DE, or do we just not understand gravity at scales larger than the solar system?

I vote for the latter.

Feb 01, 2016
Dark matter fills the space unoccupied by particles of matter and is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided

*"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."*

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way.

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.

What mainstream physics mistakes for the density of the dark matter is the state of displacement of the dark matter.

Feb 02, 2016
B.S. We don't know that

Eh, we kinda do. it would be better stated "that matter only accounts for 5% of the gravitational interaction in our universe"

Which begs the question, is there really DM/DE, or do we just not understand gravity at scales larger than the solar system?

I vote for the latter.


Even if you did, it doesn't change much. There is something causing the extra gravity we observe and because mass from matter seems a likely way to go, it's named DM. It doesn't mean we haven't coined dark stars, small unidentified black holes or a deviation of gravity's strength on galactic scales.

I assume you are referring to a possibility that gravity is stronger on a larger than stellar scale, this might be interesting.

http://onlinelibr...abstract

It however refutes the idea and can show why, so getting back to the drawing board and re-considering good old matter isn't a bad idea.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
B.S. We don't know that

Eh, we kinda do. it would be better stated "that matter only accounts for 5% of the gravitational interaction in our universe"

Which begs the question, is there really DM/DE, or do we just not understand gravity at scales larger than the solar system?

I vote for the latter.
We are only small ripples in the sea of dark energy. DM, and gravity in general, is more like waves.

Feb 02, 2016
Today, we know that matter only accounts for 5% of our universe; another 25% is constituted of dark matter.

This statement shows what is wrong with today's establishment science. They keep pushing conjecture like this as proven reality, when, as Old-C-Code says, it is B.S.

Feb 02, 2016
Los Alamos Lab's Dr. Anthony Peratt's work simulates galaxy formation using the laws of GRAVITY and PLASMA PHYSICS starting with two plasma filaments. No 95% dark matter FUDGE FACTOR required.


Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
What I can never understand about the DM enthusiasts is why they keep looking for a "new" particle or type of particle to explain the apparent presence of DM.
We can only detect photons when they travel exactly towards us (i.e. impinge on our receptor, whatever it is). Therefore, there are untold zillions flying past us at any time that are completely impossible to detect, yet if they possess even the tiniest mass (they must have some mass or equivalence to be affected by gravity!), then they must total immense amounts of mass. So, it is undeniable that the universe is jammed full of undetectable photons whizzing about. Dark Matter my ass!

Feb 02, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 02, 2016
When the density of particles becomes comparable with density of vacuum fluctuations,
Particle density itself doesn't change, but of course the density of particles could be anything. For vacuum fluctuations I was thinking the critical factor was the magnitude of the fluctuation. The density of these fluctuations would be fixed by the density of the Higgs field. I never heard anything about the density of the Higgs field. That would be interesting.

Feb 03, 2016
Los Alamos Lab's Dr. Anthony Peratt's work simulates galaxy formation using the laws of GRAVITY and PLASMA PHYSICS starting with two plasma filaments. No 95% dark matter FUDGE FACTOR required.


Peratt's hypothesis died a long time ago, due to the lack of evidence that he himself predicted would be seen.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html

Feb 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Reg Mundy posted:
What I can never understand about the DM enthusiasts is why they keep looking for a "new" particle or type of particle to explain the apparent presence of DM. We can only detect photons when they travel exactly towards us (i.e. impinge on our receptor, whatever it is). Therefore, there are untold zillions flying past us at any time that are completely impossible to detect, yet if they possess even the tiniest mass (they must have some mass or equivalence to be affected by gravity!), then they must total immense amounts of mass. So, it is undeniable that the universe is jammed full of undetectable photons whizzing about. Dark Matter my ass!
Phys1 replied:
Your rant is completely stupid.
Phys1, how about living up to your username? Explain to Reg Mundy, in scientifically supported manner, exactly where, how and why, his "rant is completely stupid"? Unless you do that, you cannot claim to have properly refuted his assertions. :)

Feb 04, 2016
Your rant is completely stupid.


Phys1, how about living up to your username? Explain to Reg Mundy, in scientifically supported manner, exactly where, how and why, his "rant is completely stupid"? Unless you do that, you cannot claim to have properly refuted his assertions. :)


He can't live up to his username because that implies he has only made to 1st semester physics, you need to get to 2nd semester physics to get anywhere close to the material under discussion here.

But then too, we know Stumpy has never had a course in Calculus, therefore we can also surmise his 1st semester physics sign-on handle as Phys 1 is phony as well. Before taking 1st semester physics I had to have two semesters of calculus.

Feb 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
Phys1, how about living up to your username? Explain to Reg Mundy, in scientifically supported manner, exactly where, how and why, his "rant is completely stupid"? Unless you do that, you cannot claim to have properly refuted his assertions. :)
We know how many photons are around. That is the first thing anyone interested in astronomy learns, to calculate an absolute magnitude of a star. Then, photons have at most an extremely small mass and can not form a dark matter halo. Reg Mundy viciously criticises what he does not understand. That's all he is capable of. There is nothing to gain by explaining physics to him.
The point of my suggestion was to offer your scientific argument in rebuttal to Reg so it is a discussion not a cheap-shot-fest from both 'sides'. See? If you had said that in the first instance, then Reg would have had opportunity/onus to argue/defend scientifically in reply. And...voila'!...thus it will be discourse not insult-fest. :)

Feb 04, 2016
If you understood anything of the DM theory you wouldn't haver asked me to explain.


Stumpy,

if only you understood anything at all of DM theory you'd know Zwicky proposed it to be an envelope enshrouding only Spiral Galaxies. But you've made clear your ignorance of what the DM godfather (Zwicky) wrote in his dissertations about this Cosmic Fairy Dust & the relationship with her sister the Tooth Fairy.

Zwicky & Einstein knew one another, and they talked about this subject. Zwicky knew he'd be running into a lot of trouble with Einstein's calculations for photon deflection in GR if he didn't keep his DM well beyond the visible edge of Spiral Galaxies. But you Stumpy, don't know why this is the case, it is solely due to your abysmal lack of education in the field of these disciplines of science that it will never be possible for you to comprehend it.

Just go back to being Stumpy & stop trying to pretend you can be something that is not possible.

Feb 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC RC, wake up. Reg Mundy does not engage in science. He's a nutter. Didn't you read the quote from him I included above? So what will it be? Do you side with science or with ignorance ?
Mate, you should know by now that the only 'side' I take is that of objective scientific discourse/reality. Status of the source/protagonists is irrelevant when an issue is being discussed on allegedly new basis as asserted by whomever. These assertions should be addressed properly if rebuttal is the aim. Otherwise it's nothing but an insult competition where your attitude to RM engenders his attitude to you in response....which is a good way to getting nowhere for either 'side'. The courteous and objective scientific discourse is front and center in my motivation to comment at all. Please don't take my asking you to support your responses as somehow being on the 'side' of whomever you are in exchange with. I am impartial, independent observer. Rebuttals, not insults. :)

Feb 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
This is what you get from RM when you explain physics:
Yes, you did say that! Are you now claiming a schitzophrenic episode when another part of you said it, but not you? Somebody stole your password and pretended to be you? What?
So RC, .....Make up your mind.
I saw that exchange between you. It appears that he claimed the further away from the gravity source the less the light is 'bent' so that the rays diverge instead of converge as is claimed for gravitational lensing. Am I correct that you assert the opposite, ie: that the further away from the gravitational source, the more the light is bent so as to give the image as a converging/focused image? I haven't yet seen (or missed?) your respective further supporting scientific arguments for/against your respective takes re converging/diverging light paths through gravitational lens scenario. I look forward to further discourse between you two on the differing perspectives as stated by you two. :)

Feb 04, 2016
I haven't yet seen (or missed?) your respective further supporting scientific arguments for/against your respective takes re converging/diverging light paths through gravitational lens scenario. I look forward to further discourse between you two on the differing perspectives as stated by you two.


RC.....you don't get it yet? Stumpy/Phys 1 doesn't know how to study the photon deflection section of Einstein's GR, so he can never comprehend anything about 2nd semester physics. He's out here on his own without Copy & Paste, and he can't function, Lost In Space, a good Stumpy narrative.

Feb 04, 2016
Before taking 1st semester physics I had to have two semesters of calculus.

So they had to send you back 2 semesters?

Feb 04, 2016
Hi RC :)
I don't see you responding to either Benni or Reg.
Why is that?

Feb 05, 2016
Usual dark mantras of dark religion.

Can not fail to impress how today metaphysicians try to explain the physical world with the invisible and elusive for the scientific equipment fictional phenomena such as dark matter and energy, black holes, neutron stars, hidden dimensions, quantum fluctuations, infinitely elastic geometric space on which can be made arbitrary mathematical manipulations, etc., just to keep the thoughts for the Creator away from their mind, because this view point requires the responsibility and obedience to the supreme will of the holy God.

Feb 05, 2016
@MM
___
Cranks to be ignored:
Benni plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
Pariahs to be ignored: bschott
This list is updated continuously.


To everyone in the Stumpy/Phys 1 above hate list: You need to be clicking the Report button & following that up with emails to the Contact link at the bottom of the page. In your emails you need to be explicit as to whom you're complaining about along explicit descriptions of the post. Most importantly of all, tell them you will put up an AdBlocking feature if this kind of foul mouthed hate rhetoric doesn't stop.

Feb 05, 2016
They do not seek the truth and are not interested in it. They make lists. Perhaps they have nothing to say.
The aggression is a manifestation of fear. If they are secure in their beliefs will be relaxed and will have arguments in their support backed with scientific facts. But they doubt them. And the uncertainty and reluctance to leave their comfort zone creates their mental turmoil, which manifest as aggression in the forum.

Feb 05, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 05, 2016
"But it's said, that the repetition is also mother of wisdom... - or not?"

There is no wisdom in such claim. Nor logic.

Feb 05, 2016
I dunno, Phys1 promised me that he would ignore me from now on, but he keeps sniping at me just for pointing out the stupidity of some (most?) of his statements. C'mon, fiz, ignore me like you promised and stop flinging meaningless insults. Try defending your statements instead (preferably with a bit of science, althuogh I know that's asking a lot of you...).

Feb 05, 2016
Usual dark mantras of dark religion.

Can not fail to impress how today metaphysicians try to explain the physical world ....
Seems like these guys would pretend to be healers, not physicists.

Feb 05, 2016
@MM
___
Cranks to be ignored:
Benni plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
Pariahs to be ignored: bschott
This list is updated continuously.


To everyone in the Stumpy/Phys 1 above hate list: You need to be clicking the Report button & following that up with emails to the Contact link at the bottom of the page. In your emails you need to be explicit as to whom you're complaining about along explicit descriptions of the post. Most importantly of all, tell them you will put up an AdBlocking feature if this kind of foul mouthed hate rhetoric doesn't stop.


In followup, when submitting an email to Contact, you can Copy & Paste into the Contact message box the exact post about which you are complaining.


Feb 05, 2016
Usual dark mantras of dark religion.

Can not fail to impress how today metaphysicians try to explain the physical world with the invisible and elusive for the scientific equipment fictional phenomena such as dark matter and energy, black holes, neutron stars, hidden dimensions, quantum fluctuations, infinitely elastic geometric space on which can be made arbitrary mathematical manipulations, etc., just to keep the thoughts for the Creator away from their mind, because this view point requires the responsibility and obedience to the supreme will of the holy God.

So.... you're sayin' - "ignorance is bliss"?

Feb 05, 2016
They do not seek the truth and are not interested in it. They make lists. Perhaps they have nothing to say.

Doesn't "God" keep lists? Like the one he will judge us by at whenever point in time?
The aggression is a manifestation of fear. If they are secure in their beliefs will be relaxed and will have arguments in their support backed with scientific facts.

Which you refuse to recognize when it is done.
But they doubt them. And the uncertainty and reluctance to leave their comfort zone creates their mental turmoil, which manifest as aggression in the forum.

You make comment in here;
- either desperate to find converts (doing a gods works - a good pet).
- or to be converted (prob'ly your innermost secret desire that even you won't admit to, but doggedly sabotage with your fear).
You create said "manifestations" as a way of cementing your fear as rational position.
BTW - this is not aggression. It's merely an observation.

Feb 05, 2016
Hi TehDog. :)
Hi RC :)
It's good to see someone else 'smilie-ing' for a change (I hope and trust it wasn't more sarcasm from you, mate?...for that would be a great waste of a perfectly good 'smilie'!). Anyhow, to answer your question...
Hi RC :)I don't see you responding to either Benni or Reg. Why is that?
I have, more than once, in the past; and in the recent past too. :) ...but you probably missed it because you've had me on 'ignore' for most of he time?....please correct me if I'm wrong. For example, I have previously advise viko_mx to eschew inserting religious claims/proselytizing in his posts and just address the scientific issues with scientific arguments. He did so for a while, but soon reverted to religious stuff when others kept making snide remarks about his motives and calling him insane etc etc. It was good while it lasted, but the continued nastiness by others dragging him back to religious crap of the past made him revert to old habits.

...cont

Feb 05, 2016
...cont @ TehDog:

For an example of what I meant about others dragging him back into defensive personal/religious mode, please see Phys1's latest post above mine. Get the point, about others reinforcing his religious mania by treating all is attempts at solely scientific discourse with contempt, despite his obvious past attempts to post only on the science and with no religious crap attached? A Pity. He was going quite well for a short time too!

As for my responses to others on Phys1's 'ignore-or-ban-as-crank-list', I have also done so many times in the past. The conversation improved somewhat for a while, but the usual 'old feuds' were again resumed from both sides, and so here we are again, with a number of 'the usual suspects' on both 'sides' again presenting tendencies to revert to past insult fests instead of starting afresh with polite discourse on topic and on science in this New Year of discovery and advancement of science and humanity. Again, a pity.

Cheers. :)

Feb 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Just to make my position clear, I expect those who profess to be scientific posters to set a better standard and example for all posters. That is what a scientist should be: dispassionate as to people and motives; impartial to the facts and to interpretations of same; courteous and willing to demonstrate their own tolerance and patience against all provocations; and letting the chips fall where they may as long as the discussion is on-topic and on-science; leave feuds and ego to those lesser mortals who prefer social media insult-fests instead of contributing something worthwhile to science and humanity's future advancement away from ignorance and hate and just plain stupidity which may be found to flourish on 'all sides' unless there is a collective effort to bring scrupulous objectivity, independence of mind and courteous dealing with fellow human beings of all kinds and in all situations.

Improvement begins with oneself. Good luck and good thinking, all. :)

Feb 05, 2016
And don't smack-talk Wikipedia - the majority of it's contributors are ACTUAL scientists...:-)

Feb 05, 2016
This should shed a little "light" on the subject... (sometimes I just crack myself up)
"Unlike an optical lens, maximum 'bending' occurs closest to, and minimum 'bending' furthest from, the center of a gravitational lens. Consequently, a gravitational lens has no single focal point, but a focal line instead. If the (light) source, the massive lensing object, and the observer lie in a straight line, the original light source will appear as a ring around the massive lensing object. If there is any misalignment the observer will see an arc segment instead. This phenomenon was first mentioned in 1924 by the St. Petersburg physicist Orest Chwolson,[4] and quantified by Albert Einstein in 1936. It is usually referred to in the literature as an Einstein ring, since Chwolson did not concern himself with the flux or radius of the ring image. "

Whoa...time warp! I wrote this one first...

Feb 05, 2016
Hi bschott. :)
@RC - Regarding your position, you are on a form of social media...not in a lab where best practice is employed.
Overall, it is a mixed site here. The science-news topic under discussion should automatically self-distinguishes a thread/discussion from the general social-media type of matter, expectations and discussion type (ie, scientific as opposed to general). One doesn't need a piece of paper or official/peer scientist approval/involvement to 'be' and discuss scientifically oneself. Following the tenets of the scientific method, coupled with a willingness to acknowledge facts and mistakes in one's own arguments and in others', and politely discussing those differences, is all that scientific discourse 'demands'. New science understandings, on ALL 'sides', flow from objective and democratic discourse, not elitism/exclusion. The Internet ha been a great 'democratizer'.

Your kind sentiments returned. Am not perfect yet; but one lives/learns. Cheers. :)

Feb 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You apparently have missed the madness viko_mx has been posting here. ...You would do us all a favour to encourage viko_mx to stay away from here....
No, mate; see my response to TehDog. I have been aware of, and previously made comments/suggestions, accordingly. The problem keeps reverting because, despite efforts on his part before, some posters keep making nasty remarks which cause him to revert to religious 'self-affirmations' instead of sticking to science as he tried to do after my suggestions in the past. It's a vicious circle; it takes both 'sides' to eventually break it and keep it strictly impersonal/scientific. You've tried too, I know; but also easily revert to insults etc...so the vicious circle reinforces itself in both of you. It takes a leap of great courage and magnanimity from both sides to drop old feuds and start afresh in science and humanity discourse for its own sake.

Mate, I am not interested in excluding people if I can avoid it. :)

Feb 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
viko_mx is always talking about religion and never about science.
Can't you see through that? There is no science there so he is and has always been off-topic.
Add to that his threatening language directed at anyone not following his teachings, then you can only conclude that he is a troll that should be banned.
I want to draw you attention to the rule about not feeding the trolls. What you are doing is far worse: you want people coming here for a scientific discussion to reason with these nuts. That is nuts.
Mate, in case you don't realize it, you are making a generalization from imperfect 'listening'. I already pointed out that he DID try to make science-only posts/arguments; and then it was the nasty personal responses to that effort which made him revert. So you do him an injustice by not acknowledging he TRIED...but it was the RESPONDERS that put paid to that brief science-only effort on his part.

Giving all a 'fair go' is in my Oz character. :)

Feb 05, 2016
Nicely said, Scroofinator, though I would rephrase. O, we do not understand the scale of the universe. We may be saying the same thing.

Feb 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Yes, I saw that too. But that was after the effort I mentioned where he made science-only posts/challenges which did not presume/claim any such 'relabeled' attempts at insinuating 'religious design/control/programming' etc for the universal phenomena set. Again, I expected his reversion, because of the continuing nasty personal responses he got to his initial 'clean' efforts at science-only discourse after my suggesting he eschewed all religious takes and overlays to the points he was trying to get across.

Frankly, after his reception when he DID try properly, I don't know if he will ever be persuaded to again try science-only discussion/contribution. I hope he will try again; and, if he does, that the responders will resist personal nastiness and take his thoughts and points on a science-only basis as he intended, and not drag/force him back to religious defensive reaction again.

Thanks for at least discusing the matter, Phys1. Much appreciated, mate! Kudos. :)

Feb 05, 2016
5/5 (3) 1 hour ago
@RC
viko_mx is always talking about religion and never about science.
Can't you see through that? There is no science there so he is and has always been off-topic.
Add to that his threatening language directed at anyone not following his teachings, then you can only conclude that he is a troll that should be banned.
I want to draw you attention to the rule about not feeding the trolls. What you are doing is far worse: you want people coming here for a scientific discussion to reason with these nuts. That is nuts.


Hear, hear!

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Ask Stumpy how great that feels.

Feb 05, 2016
Hi NiteSkyGerl. :)

You missed the further relevant discussion on this matter. Please don't keep up old personal prejudices/feuds based on old/incomplete impressions/information. You probably didn't mean to do that. But that's what it seems like. :)

This is a New Year of scientific discovery and correction which all of us can contribute to in our own small way through the objective and non-prejudicial discussions on the net and elsewhere. Let old bygones be bygones, everyone. We're all in this together whether we like it or not.

Encourage better behaviour/contributions by understanding and example, not by antagonism and prejudices of old. Good luck and good thinking, all. :)

Feb 05, 2016
@RC
viko_mx is always talking about religion and never about science.
Can't you see through that? There is no science there so he is and has always been off-topic.


.......and so you imagine your rebuttal responses with all the name calling & foul mouthed litany of profanity & filth is what you think my kids should be reading as opposed to what Viko posts?

You want to do something really useful with your life? Here's where you can start: There are a lot of Partial Differential Equations in Einstein's GR, you could go to work on a couple of them & come back & give us weekly reports on your progress. Do you understand why I specifically point out Partial DEs & not some other forms of DEs? Probably you don't......

Feb 05, 2016
@ Benni. :)
Probably you don't......


Take it easy, mate. Let the latest discussion sink in before any further 'attitude' provocations, ok? (and hopefully there won't need to be any more such 'attitude' provocations...from any 'side').

PS: Gotta go now, for a few days. So see y'all when I get back. Cheers. Play nice! :)

Feb 05, 2016
@ Benni. :)

Take it easy, mate. Let the latest discussion sink in before any further 'attitude' provocations, ok? (and hopefully there won't need to be any more such 'attitude' provocations...from any 'side').


OK RC, so far you don't win much from me for this until there is success, talk is cheap, but we'll know how really deep "the latest discussion" sank in when we see his refutation of the below list of those who should be under conditions of ostracization on THIS site.

Trolls:
Benni plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
Pariahs: bschott


Looking forward to seeing some PDE solutions from you Phys 1.


Feb 05, 2016
To weigh in -
Benni - your kids are probly too smart to bother with a science info collation site like this, anyway. They know how to go straight to the source. And stop the DE crap... Go skiing on your trails or something
RC - Nice try. Admirable. A little wordy but most get the point, I would hope..
Phys1 - tone down the "grumpy ol' man who knows it all" routine. It comes off as elitist. My wiki post showed you were wrong on lensing. Own up and move on, not get defensive and gruff.
Viko - cut the creator crap. It sounds like my grandmother...
and so on and so on..
This is a site for EVERY one. Some come to learn, some come for to validate themselves and some come cuz it's entertaining (hand raised)..
Dang... and now I'm not sure where I was goin' with this, anymore...


Feb 05, 2016
To weigh in -
Benni - your kids are probly too smart to bother with a science info collation site like this, anyway. They know how to go straight to the source. And stop the DE crap.


Whydening Gyre- So far you're the only person, other than Phys 1 of course, who imagines that the Phys 1 manner of name calling & foul mouthed profanity is magnitudes of order preferable to challenging him, or anyone like him, to work on some constructive solutions to Partial DEs in Einstein's GR, and publish them here for all of us to read. Why would you think that? Out of your own mouth, you think the greatest trespass that can occur on this site is challenging the purveyors of foul mouthed filth to solving some math problems.

Feb 05, 2016
What I stated in my post on lensing was entirely correct.

Maybe you posted on lensing in another thread, but not this one.
It is the explanation of the lensing effect in wave terms.

Even in "wave" terms, the strongest light bending is at the closest point to the gravitational body.
The effect is analogous to a dielectric medium.

Capacitance?!?
The gravitational effect of a concentrated mass does not create a _perfect_ lens, obviously.
I never said it did.

I threw the extra passages for entertainment. I never said you said it did.
I have no respect for an ignoramus who wrote "DM my ass" without backing it up. Do you ?

Respect for "Ignoramii "(?) has nothing to do with it. Calling his response a "stupid rant" isn't any better. RC asked you to provide evidence that DM exists - you didn't.
Math infers something is there. It can also infer that the input is wrong.
So - provide a viable alternative... not judgements.

Feb 05, 2016
Whydening Gyre- So far you're the only person, other than Phys 1 of course, who imagines that his manner of name calling & foul mouthed profanity is magnitudes of order preferable to challenging him, or anyone like him,

Magnitudes?!? Your objection to language use is blatantly specious. I don't really like name calling, tho.
...to work on some constructive solutions to Partial DEs in Einstein's GR, and publish them here for all of us to read.

You haven't done it when asked, either, Mr. DE.
Out of your own mouth,

Show me when and where.
you think the greatest trespass that can occur on this site is challenging the purveyors of foul mouthed filth to solving some math problems.

The greatest trespass is the lying that gets done on here.
But - even that is entertaining...

Feb 05, 2016
Hi RC :)I don't see you responding to either Benni or Reg *. Why is that?

"I have, more than once, in the past; and in the recent past too. :)"
Maybe I should have added *"in this thread" ?

" ...but you probably missed it because you've had me on 'ignore' for most of he time?"
I have no one on ignore at anytime, any input may be useful.

"....please correct me if I'm wrong."
You are corrected.
You also failed to answer my original question.
Why is that?
(And of course, having dropped a bunch of posts saying very little with many words, he's off to some summit or conference or to finish his TOE)

Feb 05, 2016
RC asked you to provide evidence that DM exists - you didn't.
Math infers something is there.


OK, WG, you think my DE math challenges to the purveyors of name calling foul mouthed profanity is just way out of line. So just who do you imagine yourself to be to make this statement: "Math infers something is there." You, as an artist, can make this statement about someone's proficiency in "Math", but let an experienced Engineer, such as myself, challenge that same person's math skills & you feel compelled to cut loose with a litany of inane nonsense why it is beyond the pale for me to do the same.

The quantity of snow on the ski trails outside my window is paled to insignificance compared to the snowjobs that pop-sci aficionados like you try pulling off on this site.


Feb 05, 2016
OK, WG, you think my DE math challenges to the purveyors of ...(yada, yada)... profanity is just way out of line. So just who do you imagine yourself to be to make this statement: "Math infers something is there."

Well, since you asked... a reasonably smart, occasionally foul mouthed guy. Who holds no pretention about what I do or have done in my life.
You, as an artist, can make this statement about someone's proficiency in "Math", but let an experienced Engineer, such as myself, challenge that same person's math skills & you feel compelled to cut loose with a litany of inane nonsense why it is beyond the pale for me to do the same.

We only know you're an Engineer cuz you've said so. Can you to show one little example of it.?
The quantity of snow on the ski trails outside my window is paled to insignificance compared to the snowjobs that pop-sci aficionados like you try pulling off on this site.

Overly dramatic & pretentious sanctimony.
It suits you.:-)

Feb 05, 2016
As to science itself, it should be criticised but within reason.
Basically good reasonable anti-science is preferred.

Feb 05, 2016
RC asked you to provide evidence that DM exists - you didn't.
Math infers something is there.


"Math infers something is there." You, as an artist, can make this statement about someone's proficiency in "Math", but let an experienced Engineer, such as myself, challenge that same person's math skills & you feel compelled to cut loose with a litany of inane nonsense why it is beyond the pale for me to do the same.

By the way, I made no statement as to someones math proficiency.
You're defensive posture is a technique used by some of the best debate tacticians on the planet - women. Therefore, I must assume you have been or are being conditioned by one...:-)
No worries. I have one trying to "condition" me, too... :-) Be strong - you can fight it...
Now. If we can, let's return to the regularly scheduled topic of sparks shedding new light on DM...

Feb 06, 2016
You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Ask Stumpy how great that feels.

Am I missin' somethin here about the Cap'n?

Feb 06, 2016
The quantity of snow on the ski trails outside my window is paled to insignificance compared to the snowjobs that pop-sci aficionados like you try pulling off on this site.
I get it now. Took a couple of reads. Very clever.

Feb 06, 2016
Now. If we can, let's return to the regularly scheduled topic of sparks shedding new light on DM...
Waiting...

Feb 06, 2016
Now. If we can, let's return to the regularly scheduled topic of sparks shedding new light on DM...
Waiting...

Sorry, seeker, but it's past midnite and I'm wearin' down. So - no input from me...:-)

Feb 06, 2016
"viko_mx is always talking about religion and never about science."

Without the faith in the Creator who has left millions evidence of His presence in the physical world, people are not able to make true science. In this situation they are able to create only metaphysical mumbo jumbo as can be seen easily today.
When they deliberately evade the very reason for the emergence and the existence of a universe and life in it, for them remains only to offer stupid highly speculative theories without evidence because they can not rely on scientific facts. Therefore repeat infinitely selectively the same mantras. It does not look like science but as attempts to suggestion.

Feb 06, 2016
You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Ask Stumpy how great that feels.

Am I missin' somethin here about the Cap'n?


I hope I'll have something I can tell you in the next few days.

Feb 06, 2016
Phys1 - tone down the "grumpy ol' man who knows it all" routine. It comes off as elitist. My wiki post showed you were wrong on lensing.

What I stated in my post on lensing was entirely correct.
It is the explanation of the lensing effect in wave terms.
The effect is analogous to a dielectric medium.
The gravitational effect of a concentrated mass does not create a _perfect_ lens, obviously.
I never said it did.
I have no respect for an ignoramus who wrote "DM my ass" without backing it up. Do you ?

Getting at me again, fiz? Look, everybody but you knows you are wrong re GL, can't you see that?
And my explanation for DM was given and is as good as yours anyday, the evidence is the same and I do not require the invention of new particles, etc. but ascribe the effect to KNOWN particles which are undetectable as they can only be "seen" when impinging on our receptors. Impeccable logic, my boy, based on KNOWN facts, as opposed to wild imaginationary creations.

Feb 06, 2016
Maybe you posted on lensing in another thread, but not this one.

How do you mean "maybe"? You brought up the subject of my post yourself.

My bad. After going thru the whole thread (again), I was reading RC's summation of your "rant" post.
...to understand this analogy you have to understand the basics of both GRT and optics

Don't finger wag. The analogy is clear to you, not to me.
Math infers something is there.
Math never does.

Then what tells us DM is out there?
It can also infer that the input is wrong.
Can but does not. DM is a viable theory.

Of course it is. But...why?
There's a nutter shouting "DM my ass". Let the nutter show that he has a point.
I am starting to doubt your judgement, WG, frankly.

Reg has, in the past, made some pretty egregiously erroneous comments.
But, I also, wonder about photonic mass.
And (frankly) doubting my judgement is a judgement call you have a right to make.
Doesn't make it right.

Feb 06, 2016
Peratt's hypothesis died a long time ago, due to the lack of evidence that he himself predicted would be seen.
http://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/scott-rebuttal-ii-peratt-galaxy-model.html


Who said anything about creationism? The big bang theory is as religious as creationist insanity. Saying the forces due to gravity aren't the only forces at work in space has nothing to do with religious hogwash.

This idea didn't die. IEEE made Plasma Cosmology an officially recognized field of study in 2012.

I'll go with the electrical engineers, not with the USELESS gravity priests. I've watched them drive astronomy into a big dead end the past forty years. Who do you think designs and develops all that particle corralling technology? Theorists? HaHaHaHa

Feb 06, 2016
Since the guidelines are rarely enforced I see no other means than by maintaining a troll blacklist.


Your "troll blacklist" isn't credible because by the admission of the words of your sigh-on handle you have yet to pass a 2nd semester physics course.

You should have been thinking about little things such as how you put up a sign-on handle (such as Phys 1) because such little things often reveal miniscule details about your personal background that you never intended to reveal. Of course by now since myself & others have pointed out your sign-on mistake, the best you can do to paper it over is to direct a plethora of foul mouthed profanity at anyone who dares pointing out the obvious lack of your science & math skills.

Are you another of those DM Enthusiasts who look in a mirror every morning wishing that 80% of what you see were not there? Judging from the amount of time you spend here, I can just imagine what kind of a couch potato you must be.

Feb 06, 2016
You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. Ask Stumpy how great that feels.


Am I missin' somethin here about the Cap'n?


I hope I'll have something I can tell you in the next few days.


@VietVet & WG,

Those of us who have professional decency standards don't care anything at all about the Captain of your foul mouthed Vote Brigade. The foul mouthed conduct of the two of you is surpassed only by that of your precious Captain about whom those of us with deep interests in science have no rapport & want none.

Feb 06, 2016
Impeccable logic, my boy, based on KNOWN facts, as opposed to wild imaginationary creations.
If the universe was created, what was it created from? Paraphasing from the Nicene Creed, the universe was begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. Might as well get it out there.

Feb 06, 2016


@VietVet & WG,

Those of us who have professional decency standards don't care anything at all about the Captain of your foul mouthed Vote Brigade. The foul mouthed conduct of the two of you is surpassed only by that of your precious Captain about whom those of us with deep interests in science have no rapport & want none.


Says the hypocrite who hurls insults with every comment.

Feb 06, 2016

@VietVet & WG,

Those of us who have professional decency standards don't care anything at all about the Captain of your foul mouthed Vote Brigade. The foul mouthed conduct of the two of you is surpassed only by that of your precious Captain about whom those of us with deep interests in science have no rapport & want none.

I've used a "foul" word, at most, 3 times in the 3 or 4 years I have been here. Maybe once in the last year. And NONE of the times have been used in a malicious way.
My use of them "pales to insignificance" in comparison to your overly pretentious sanctimony and lying BS, which even I am finally finding offensive (and it takes a lot to offend me).
You earned the rep you have, deal with it...
(And since you wouldn't let your kids on here, do us all a favour and not let yourself on here, either.)

Feb 06, 2016
@VietVet & WG,

Those of us who have professional decency standards don't care anything at all about the Captain of your foul mouthed Vote Brigade. The foul mouthed conduct of the two of you is surpassed only by that of your precious Captain about whom those of us with deep interests in science have no rapport & want none.


Says the hypocrite who hurls insults with every comment.


@VV
He 's in a category of his own now.

Do not feed the following trolls:
plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
and pariahs: bschott
and psychos: Benni
This list is updated continuously.


Quite an accurate listing of those here who refuse to stoop to your cultural standards of indecency.

Feb 06, 2016

@VietVet & WG,

Those of us who have professional decency standards don't care anything at all about the Captain of your foul mouthed Vote Brigade.

And lets discuss voting. I have used my "1" once in the last three years. I only "5" where I find intellectual value or humour. I don't care how others vote.
you have only made me laugh, BTW. Usually at your effete attempts to look smarter than others...
Show us your own DE calcs that you ask of others.

Feb 06, 2016
Quite an accurate listing of those here who refuse to stoop to your cultural standards of indecency.

Quit trying to make me laugh. You're faux pretention is not that funny anymore.

Feb 06, 2016
As to the article, I look forward to when they can refine their detection equipment/method to their predicted DM energy levels. I'm curious to see what they may find, if anything.

Feb 06, 2016
BTW. Usually at your effete attempts to look smarter than others...
Show us your own DE calcs that you ask of others.


WG, you still just do not get it, it's the foul mouthed Vote Brigade who get their math skills challenged by me, that does not comprise anyone in the the Hate List authored by one your Vote Brigade members.....Remember this list:

Do not feed the following trolls:
plasmasrevenge cantdrive45 liquidspacetime gkam kaiserderden antigoracle Seeker2 promile swordsman viko_mx DavidW BartV bluehigh baudrunner Solon hyperfuzzy julianpenrod emaalouf theprocessionist wduckss Old_C_Code Bigbangcon katesisco jimbraumcos indio007 LifeBasedLogic Reg Mundy vidyunmaya
and pariahs: bschott
and psychos: Benni
This list is updated continuously.


............oh, how fast you forget WG. No one on the Hate List of your favorite compadre has ever had a math challenge from me, they're civil rational people, only your foul mouthed Hate Brigade compadres get a summons.


Feb 06, 2016
There's a nutter shouting "DM my ass". Let the nutter show that he has a point.
I am starting to doubt your judgement, WG, frankly.

Reg has, in the past, made some pretty egregiously erroneous comments.
But, I also, wonder about photonic mass.
And (frankly) doubting my judgement is a judgement call you have a right to make.
Doesn't make it right.

Correct. Show me wrong any time ;-) .
Same for other subjects, that is what this blog is for.

I've shown you wrong several times, perhaps your memory is going......
All I get in return is insults instead of gratitude.

Feb 06, 2016
@Phys-1
DM is a viable theory. If it is not I would like to be the first to know.

The chances of you being the first to know anything are mighty slim, as you consistently refuse to think for yourself, just blindly flying to the defense of your cherished dogma despite being faced with FACTS!
When I say defense, I suppose that is stretching it a bit, as the so-called defense consists of hurling insults with never a shred of logic. Now, remember you promised to ignore me...

Feb 06, 2016
Dear Reg Mundy and Phys1, photons have no mass at all - "at rest" /a state, that according to the accepted theory it can't obtain anyway :)/ - representable as a scalar value, at least as much as current theories agree. They have some kinetic energy due to their movement - meaning they have momentum and energy - a vector, and in wave theory the pressure EM wave causes on matter is due to electromagnetic properties of both. If they had mass the general understanding says they wouldn't be photons, as they wouldn't be able to move with the speed of light :) /at least according to Special Relativity/. The fact that photon trajectory is being affected by gravity comes not from photon's mass either, but from the curvature, inflicted on the space itself by presence of mass /of the massive body nearby, not that of the photon itself :)/

Feb 06, 2016
photons have no mass at all - "at rest" /a state, that according to the accepted theory it can't obtain anyway :)
Translates to - can be affected by gravity in normal moving state?
They have some kinetic energy due to their movement - meaning they have momentum and energy - a vector,
meaning - can be affected by gravity?
and in wave theory the pressure EM wave causes on matter is due to electromagnetic properties of both.
meaning - there is energy transfer between them?
If they had mass the general understanding says they wouldn't be photons, as they wouldn't be able to move with the speed of light :) /at least according to Special Relativity/.

Electrons have mass (1/1836th of proton - must be in motion, I guess) Don't electrons move at the speed of light? Or is that just an energy transfer via photon emission that does?
(cont)

Feb 06, 2016
.The fact that photon trajectory is being affected by gravity comes not from photon's mass either, but from the curvature, inflicted on the space itself by presence of mass /of the massive body nearby, not that of the photon itself :)/

Doesn't this seem to indicate some sort of density fluctuation in space itself?

Feb 06, 2016
Doesn't this seem to indicate some sort of density fluctuation in space itself?

Only if you think of space as embedded in some cartesic aether "superspace". But that makes little sense. So, no: theres no "space density" gradient involved.

Spacetime is defined by its geodesics (the paths that light take). It's not necessarily an euclidian space.

Feb 06, 2016
Doesn't this seem to indicate some sort of density fluctuation in space itself?

Only if you think of space as embedded in some cartesic aether "superspace". But that makes little sense. So, no: theres no "space density" gradient involved.

Spacetime is defined by its geodesics (the paths that light take). It's not necessarily an euclidian space.

So... if there's no framework, why does space bother to "curve" or cause "lensing" around a high mass body? It's beginning to sound like fluidic flow of photons around an obstruction...

Feb 06, 2016
f there's no framework, why does space bother to "curve" or cause "lensing"

That's just the way it behaves around any kind of energy..Why exactly that is is anyone's guess.(it's the question of "why is the universe the way it is" - and currently we don't know) .

Anything that is dynamic/changeable means that there is an interaction of two (or more) things going on. But there's got to be one constant around which everything needs to accomodate itself (that constant seems to be the speed of light)

The bending and lensing is more of a psychological problem, because we insist on thinking of space as cartesian. We then impose the ideas of lensing (or fluid dynamics) on it to explain what we are seeing - when in fact it's that (false) insistence on a cartesian world view that necessitates these explanations.

If we were just to accept to see everything from the POV of "speed of light" then everything in spacetime would appear straight.

Feb 06, 2016
in wave theory the pressure EM wave causes on matter is due to electromagnetic properties of both

Could you clarify this?

I think he might have meant something like Rayleigh scattering... photon frequency causing matter to "vibrate" and "polarize" light? You hinted at this, I think...

Feb 07, 2016
@RC
I read what you say but I disagree. He renamed his idea of a "divine matrix" to a "structure of the vacuum". That concept has absolutely nothing in common with science.
Welcome to science, Phys1. Check out I show that the vacuum is comprised of quantum singularities that make up a lattice structure within the vacuum and that it is the oscillations of these quantum singularities that contribute to quantum fluctuations, resulting in particle-anti-particle pairs. Particles are shown to be specific resonances of localized wave patterns of quantum singularities that make up the fabric of space-time. Within this approach, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is used to predict that at the infinitesimal scale of the Planck length, space is actually "grainy" and has a well-defined structure.

The structure of the vacuum (PDF Download Available). Available from: https://www.resea...e_vacuum [accessed Feb 7, 2016].

Feb 07, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Feb 07, 2016
@Phys-0
Dear Reg Mundy and Phys1


Please do not name me in the same sentence with a troll.
It is bad for my reputation and good for his.

Now you call me a troll. On what basis? Is anybody who disagrees with you a troll? No wonder your ignore list grows by the day! I could respond with gratuitous insults, e.g you are a moron, but that would be descending to your level, and there is an old maxim "If you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit. But the pig likes it!". I don't have to call you a moron, I would prefer to let people form their own opinion.

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