Mysterious X-ray signal does not originate from dark matter

Mysterious x-ray signal does not originate from dark matter
Charge exchange instead of dark matter: An X-ray signal from clusters of galaxies, which researchers have so far not been able to explain, could be produced when highly charged sulfur captures an electron. A sulfur nucleus (S16+) approaches a hydrogen atom (A) and attracts the electron (B), which ends up in a high energy level of S15+ (C) before falling back into the ground state (D), emitting X-rays as it does so. Credit: Max Planck Society

A mysterious X-ray signal from clusters of galaxies recently caused some excitement among astronomers: Does it perhaps originate from dark matter, which makes up around 80 percent of the matter in the universe, but which scientists have not yet been able to detect? In order to help answering this question, physicists at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg checked an alternative explanation. Accordingly, the search for this form of matter, which is difficult to detect, must go on, as the mysterious X-ray signal seems to originate from highly charged sulfur ions that capture electrons from hydrogen atoms.

Around two years ago, the XMM-Newton X-ray satellite radioed data back to Earth which fired up great hopes with astrophysicists. It had picked up weak radiation from several galaxy clusters at an energy of around 3.5 kiloelectronvolts (keV) which the researchers were not immediately able to explain with the aid of the known X-ray spectra. Speculation quickly arose that they could be signals of decaying particles of dark matter – this would have been the first concrete trace of the long-sought form of matter. Hope was soon dampened, however: The regions in which XMM-Newton observed the X-ray radiation did not match the spatial distribution which astrophysical analyses predicted for dark matter.

In addition, there are still a large number of physical processes for which astronomers do not know the corresponding fingerprints in X-ray spectra, and so cannot yet be excluded as the possible cause of the mysterious signal. Fact is, the spectral data in the collection of tables which researchers use to evaluate astronomical spectra are still incomplete. They are sometimes based on theoretical assumptions and are correspondingly unreliable.

Highly charged ions can frequently be found between the galaxies

Physicists working with José Crespo, Leader of a Research Group at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, have now closed one gap in the X-ray data with their experiments. They thereby support a suggestion made by their Dutch cooperation partners Liyi Gu and Jelle Kaastra as to what the cause of the X-rays could be. According to computations done by the two researchers from SRON, Netherlands Institute for Space Research, the mysterious line could be caused by bare sulfur nuclei (S16+), i.e. sulfur atoms that have lost all their electrons, each of which picks up one electron from a hydrogen atom.

Highly charged ions can often be found in the hot medium between the galaxies of a cluster, and sufficient completely ionized sulfur is present as well. "Explained in illustrative terms, the charge exchange operates like this," says José Crespo in explanation of the process: "The high charge of the S16+ ion sort of sucks in the electron of the H atom. It then releases energy in the form of X-rays."

Experiments in an electron beam ion trap

The physicists used an ion trap for the measurements. First, they injected an extremely thin beam of a volatile sulfur compound into the vacuum of the apparatus. The electrons with which they then bombarded the molecules fragmented the molecules and knocked the electrons out of the atoms – how many depends on the energy of the electron beam. They can thus specifically produce the highly charged sulfur ions desired.

The researchers then switched off the electron beam for a few seconds in order to be able to observe how bare sulfur ions suck electrons from molecules which have not yet been destroyed. The electrons initially have a large amount of energy when they are captured by the S16+ ions, but release this energy in the form of X-rays. The most energetic of these emissions was at around 3.47 kiloelectronvolts – i.e. quite near the mysterious line which XMM-Newton had recorded. "In order to support our interpretation, our colleagues from the Netherlands have carried out model computations on the charge exchange, and they can explain our data very well," says Chintan Shah, who made crucial contributions to the experiments.

The search for dark matter must go on

The fact that the bare sulfur ions removed the electrons from intact molecules of the volatile sulfur compound and not from hydrogen atoms in the experiments carried out in Heidelberg, is not important for the X-ray spectrum, as X-rays are only generated when the electrons in the sulfur lose energy. "If the inaccuracies of the astrophysical measurements and the experimental uncertainties are taken into account, it becomes clear that the charge exchange between bare sulfur and can outstandingly explain the mysterious signal at around 3.5 keV," explains José Crespo, in summary of the result. The search for must therefore go on.


Explore further

Detailed insight into radiation damage caused by slow electrons

More information: Laboratory measurements compellingly support charge-exchange mechanism for the 'dark matter' ∼3.5 keV X-ray line. arxiv.org/abs/1608.04751
Provided by Max Planck Society
Citation: Mysterious X-ray signal does not originate from dark matter (2016, September 2) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-09-mysterious-x-ray-dark.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.
947 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 02, 2016
This morning while grooming myself from my reflection in the mirror, I told myself that I'm very pleased 80% of me is not missing.

Sep 02, 2016
I was under the impression that it was already established that DM does not interact with EMR, isn't that one of the reasons it's called DM?

Sep 02, 2016
The idea was that dark matter particles are their own anti-particles and the X-ray radiation was from DM particles colliding and annihilating each other, the energy in the X-rays corresponding to the mass and kinetic energy of the DM via Einsteins mass/energy equivalence. In other words, the EMR only occurs when the DM disappears.

Sep 02, 2016
barakn: there's no such thing as 'energy' as if it's a kind of thing you can turn something into. Energy is not a stuff to be made or destroyed or moved. It's a number, a calculated value, that, in many circumstances stays constant over time, which is the benefit of this number.

When two particles annihilate, they do so by *coupling* to some other particle. The classic example of electron positron is the simplest, because they almost always couple with photons since they're so low in mass. But they could, in principle couple to other particles like W or Z bosons. Quarks can, in addition to those mentioned, also couple to gluons, and they can all couple to the Higgs boson. Essentially, all 'annihilation' doesn't always mean photons.

So if dark matter self-annihilates, and we detect that through photons, then it means dark-matter annihilates by coupling to some kind of normal matter, which in turn produces photons as an end product.

Sep 02, 2016
Photons are made from two electrons and 3 positions ,thats how the construct a balanced positive and negative quantum mass charge to become a wave state ,

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

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

Sep 02, 2016
Mysterious X-ray signal does not originate from dark matter
I explained before ten years, that the portion of dark matter can be formed with heavily ionized atom nuclei (http://i.imgur.com/FV8ye7q.gif) But in these times the physicists still believed in heavy WIMPS and similar stuff, promising the confirmation of stringy and loopy theories and nobody did consider it seriously. Do you see, how fast the dark matter physics changes by now?

Did you publish your study somewhere?

Sep 02, 2016
When you take a look at the http://i.imgur.com/lddDU53.jpg (NGC 5746 in this case) with X-ray observatory, you'll essentially see the spherical cloud of mutually repulsing particles, which are held together by their gravity. They're usually formed with mixture of atom nuclei and positrons, which are repelling mutually at distance, so that they cannot coalesce and annihilate spontaneously.

Have you done some computations on that? The electric force is far stronger than the gravitational one. Under what conditions do massive clouds of positively charged particles form?

Sep 02, 2016
Mysterious X-ray signal does not originate from dark matter
I explained before ten years, that the portion of dark matter can be formed with heavily ionized atom nuclei (http://i.imgur.com/FV8ye7q.gif) But in these times the physicists still believed in heavy WIMPS and similar stuff, promising the confirmation of stringy and loopy theories and nobody did consider it seriously. Do you see, how fast the dark matter physics changes by now?

Did you publish your study somewhere?

>inb4 peer review wouldn't let me
That's what you have arXiv for.

Sep 03, 2016
"Highly charged ions can often be found in the hot medium between the galaxies of a cluster,..." - Particles experiencing antigravity, if there are such particles, would also be hanging out in this hot medium. And if they really are antimatter the medium really would be hot. Just thinking.

Sep 03, 2016
Dark Matter is inferred to exist from observation, could it not simply be quantum matter, it is there on average. Much of what happens in space is explained by Plasma Theory. Background radiation leaves space at 2.5Kelvin almost uniformly everywhere, does this not explain quantum activity in space, and not multiple big bangs. If you look at things this way observations in space match what appears in the lab. etc

Sep 03, 2016
...Background radiation leaves space at 2.5Kelvin almost uniformly everywhere,..
So when it leaves space where does it go? Just asking.

Sep 03, 2016
This morning while grooming myself from my reflection in the mirror, I told myself that I'm very pleased 80% of me is not missing.


80% of your brains is missing :-)
but you would not notice.


The tone of your post is one that leaves the casual reader to believe you wished that 80% of yourself should be missing. How tall are you? What's your weight?

Try doing something productive with your life rather than living on this website engaging in unending name calling & profanity rants from your armchair. In a few minutes I'll be on my way to the backside of my property to finish the chainsaw work cutting up those two trees I knocked down the other day, firewood is nice useful stuff............Do you know what a chainsaw is? Brrrrrr......it's cold out here this morning, no sweating it out today.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 03, 2016
@tinitus
Still absolute nonsense. You throw scientific words around like confetti and expect to be taken seriously? Dream on!

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
The scientists don't consider even quite serious research once it threats their jobs, like at the case of cold fusion. In similar way, the alternative models of dark matter will be considered just after when all hopes in WIMS/SUSY model will fail, because just these models currently provide most jobs for both theorists, both experimentalists. It's all just about occupational driven model and the lack of feedback of scientific work from the side of tax payers, who are sponsoring it involuntarily.

That's wrong as per the economic law of competition. Once a viable hypothesis appears, scientists will jump on it, each one of them hoping he will go farther by it and attract most attention/citations/money. New ideas are not thrown away, but adopted if they seem viable.

Sep 03, 2016
Note that in my theory the cold dark matter essentially represents the antimatter "missing" in our universe. But because the total amount of dark matter is much larger than the amount of visible baryonic matter, it implies, that the dark matter must also contain substantial amount of normal matter - not just antimatter, or the balance of matter-antimatter couldn't be established.


Your theory needs a test to distinguish between it and current theories. Once you have that, your theory has scientific value. Until then you could at most say that it could explain some phenomena that current theories can explain too. The DM hypothesis is about as good as yours, if your theory doesn't have flaws.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 03, 2016
@tinitus
The scientists don't consider even quite serious research once it threats their jobs.....

New model suggests dark matter is made of electrically charged particles - who would think of that?

Note that in my theory the cold dark matter essentially represents the antimatter "missing" in our universe.


LOL.
As usual, ALL NONSENSE. Your posts show that you do not understand the physics, and If you knew *any* of it you would appreciate why your musings are nonsense. PLEASE take the time to learn the physics that you try to criticize. You will only continue to make a fool of yourself if you do not.

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 03, 2016

@tinitus
Your posts show that you do not understand the physics... PLEASE take the time to learn the physics that you try to criticize
This is scientific argumentation neither. Try to oppose my proposal instead. Why at least portion of dark matter couldn't be formed with charged particles, which resist their gravitational collapse in this way?


ALL the statements you made above are easily proven wrong by scientific observations.

Which one would you like to start with......?

RNP
Sep 03, 2016
@tinitus
I will take your first question as as:
"Why at least portion of dark matter couldn't be formed with charged particles,........"

The reason it is called DARK matter is that it does not interact electromagnetically - by definition - that means it can not be charged. Is THAT beyond you?

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 03, 2016
Your posts show that you do not understand the physics... PLEASE take the time to learn the physics that you try to criticize
This is scientific argumentation neither. Try to oppose my proposal instead. Why at least portion of dark matter couldn't be formed with charged particles, which resist their gravitational collapse in this way?


How many times do you need this explained to you? All charged particles interact electromagnetically. Dark matter, by definition, does not. Therefore it can not be composed of charged particles.

RNP
Sep 03, 2016
@tinitus
I see... The good boys physicists just mean with this, that DM doesn't interact with visible light - but as we can see, if it would interact with microwaves of let say X-rays, everything would be OK. Actually as we know from Bullet cluster pictures, the DM interacts even with visible matter, being dragged with it (and vice-versa).


More garbled nonsense.

Sep 03, 2016
Hi Phys1, RNP, tinitus, everyone! :)

You have to take into account recent astronomical discoveries via INFRARED. They show a LOT of ORDINARY matter that was still 'dark' to US before, despite it being EM interactive!

The reason we went INFRARED is because diffuse X-ray radiation is 'bakground' just like the CMB wavelengths were found to be.

Hence we could not actually use X-rays to determine what was EM active or not; since most X-rays would be SWAMPED by local/intermediate-distance sourced diffuse X-ray radiations from all sorts of ordinary processes going on all around us.

Which is why INFRARED wavelengths finding a LOT of 'ordinary stuff' that IS actually EM interactive.

Hence previous NON-EM DM hypotheses arose because ordinary stuff was at one time 'dark' because INFRARED radiation not 'seen' back then!

So previous NON-EM 'exotic' DM interpretations/definitions now obsolete: INFRARED data is here! And still we may not 'see' all of it!

Rethink.

Cheers! :)

Sep 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
You have to take into account recent astronomical discoveries via INFRARED. They show a LOT of ORDINARY matter that was still 'dark' to US before, despite it being EM interactive!

It is N O T the DM that everybody is looking for.
Go back to your drawing board.
What sort of rationalization is that, mate?

You may as well say it's not the pink unicorn you were looking for, while coming across a perfectly ordinary horse where you expected to find your pink unicorn.

Just because what you're looking for didn't exist as defined, and then we find ordinary stuff which was 'dark' before, but which we can see now, it doesn't make sense to just ignore/deny what you've now found, just because what you did find demonstrates that what you were looking was imaginary: not as you imagined it.

Just admit it, mate, the LOTS of ordinary stuff previously 'dark' but now being seen in EM radiations, is the REALITY; and previous non-EM DM 'defined' is not so. :)

Sep 03, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 03, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
The stuff they find does not explain the anomalous rotation nor the lensing.
Also check the title of this article, note the word "N O T".
Check back with my past conversation with Da Schneib et al, re the non-Keplerian mass-distribution in spiral galaxy disc regions, where IF GR had been initially applied correctly (not naively as if that distribution was going to be anything like the Keplerian profile of our 'clean' and 'centrally concentrated mass' distribution!), then we would not have very much of an 'anomalous' motions at all. And any remaining unusual motions can be explained by all the additional previously dark ORDINARY matter we have discovered within and around spiral galaxies

Which not only helps explain the motions due to the (now known) extended/massive galaxy parameters compared to what was previously estimated; but also help explain some redshift of distant sources obviously much vaster/massive than thought.

Good to check with reality! :)

Sep 03, 2016
to finish the chainsaw work cutting up those two trees I knocked down the other day


I hope you can handle your chainsaw better than you can physics, if not, you may actually miss 80% of your body when you are done.
.......such a tone of bitterness, persistently wishing bodily harm on others who actually do things you wished you could. I'm picturing you sitting in your armchair with your 5'-6" frame & 275 lbs & spending so much time whipping up these vast quantities of hate rants.

Why don't you take that 1st semester physics again but actually pass it this time.

Sep 03, 2016
Just admit it, mate, the LOTS of ordinary stuff previously 'dark' but now being seen in EM radiations, is the REALITY; and previous non-EM DM 'defined' is not so. :)


Hey, RC, it is exactly for this reason he is so constantly all bent out of shape going on his hate rants. One by one the nails keep going into the coffins of all this DARK/BLACK stuff that It's shaking his faith, as a consequence causing him to become totally unhinged as is evidenced by his hate rants.

Sep 03, 2016
If DM is it's own anti-particle and capable of annihilation, then over the course of the universe, wouldn't it all have annihilated?

Sep 04, 2016
If DM is it's own anti-particle and capable of annihilation, then over the course of the universe, wouldn't it all have annihilated?
Yep. Therefore it is not it's own antiparticle, if indeed it is a particle.

Sep 04, 2016
Actually as we know from Bullet cluster pictures, the DM interacts even with visible matter, being dragged with it (and vice-versa).
Should be if it's a particle. But I don't think so. Space itself has matter, which is about as dark as it gets.

Sep 04, 2016
cont
Well if you want to get picky, space has mass. That's pretty dark too.

Sep 04, 2016
cont
Well if you want to get picky, space has mass. That's pretty dark too.

Sep 04, 2016
cont
Well if you want to get picky, space has mass. That's pretty dark too.
Worth repeating apparently. Anyway we know this by frame-dragging experiments if I remember correctly. Are there any other effects I can't think of? So otherwise the effects of this mass could only be observed as a change in density in regions where we detect dark matter. To verify this we would have to do a frame dragging experiment in regions of dark matter and compare this with what we measure in orbit around the earth. Unless there is some other experiment I don't know about which the cosmologists do know about.

Sep 04, 2016
How can people not learn from experience or others' best practices? Rebutting trolls does not work. Look at this site from a number of years ago. The trolls were peripheral to serious discussion. But this obsession with dignifying every last inane comment with a response has now shut out serious comments.


Yeah Burn, and you 5 Star stuff like this:
I hope you can handle your chainsaw better than you can physics, if not, you may actually miss 80% of your body when you are done.
......wishing bodily harm on someone along with his persistent foul mouth profanity.....but no criticism for that, why not? I presume you think that is serious discussion?

Do you really think mentally ill cases like Benni would continue to comment if you ignored that self indulgent crap?
So why then do those of you in the Hate & Rant Brigade go on prolific name calling & profanity binges here? You must hate S Hawking as well, he doesn't believe in the existence of BHs either.

Sep 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
They clearly say that the baryonic mass they discovered is not the DM hypothesized to explain galaxy dynamics and lensing.
and
There are no observations of DM other that galaxy dynamics and lensing.
Even the 100 billion solar mass million kelvin plasma embedding our galaxy is part of the baryon mass and does not explain galaxy rotation.
The recent IR-facilitated Ordinary matter discoveries are all over the map, mate! From within galaxies to between galaxies and up to galaxy clusters/superclusters and surrounds. Making the whole Ordinary matter extent and distributions and mass so much MUCH greater than just the 'missing Baryon' proportion they were seeking. And as I explained earlier, the motions are no longer anomalous, if GR is apllied correctly in spiral galaxies; and to all the new expanses/distributions of Ordinary matter being found (and more to be found) which makes those old 'interpretations' (based on prior estimates/expectations) obsolete. :)

Sep 04, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Nearing end of break from my offline work; have to be brief:
I know of no paper in which the discovery new baryonic matter is reported that supports this statement.
All the papers are authored by those who grew up/were instructed/qualified etc in the culture of 'exotic' DM and its interpretational 'explanations'. Hence CONFIRMATION BIASED interpretations, no matter how increasingly against previous 'PhD-indoctrination' these recent observations are turning out to be.
What you say is diametrically opposed to what the scientists say who made the discoveries on which you want to base your statement.
What you/they are 'missing' is the WHOLE evolving picture. They remain in 'professionally safe' (but incorrect) territory for 'peer review' success. Original/Objective minds needed to "connect the dots" between ALL these recent discoveries.

Cheers. :)

PS: Also worth reading this: http://nautil.us/...ll-wrong

Sep 05, 2016
Space itself has matter, which is about as dark as it gets.
Well maybe mass if you want to be picky. Still pretty dark though. The theory then being the mass density of dark matter would then be higher than visible matter.

Sep 05, 2016
Space itself has matter, which is about as dark as it gets.

Even if it did (which it doesn't) then that wouldn't explain the uneven distribution of DM observed. So this 'theory' is bad on two counts:
1) It doesn't explain the effects observed
2) It would predict effects that aren't observed

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

Sep 05, 2016
Space itself has matter, which is about as dark as it gets.

Even if it did (which it doesn't) then that wouldn't explain the uneven distribution of DM observed. So this 'theory' is bad on two counts:
1) It doesn't explain the effects observed
2) It would predict effects that aren't observed
Sorry that's mass not matter. No observations I know of in the U has an even distribution, especially after as much turbulence as you get with the big bang.

Sep 05, 2016
The massive space cannot explain the DM distribution, but matter is formed by curved space-time...
Relativistic mass is explained by curved spacetime. Matter is a quantized form of mass-energy. Energy is distributed in various ways in the U, most of it not quantized. There may be lots of universes around with an even distribution of mass but no one around to talk about it.

Sep 05, 2016
OBTW relativistic mass is not quantized. Duh..

Sep 05, 2016
Reality Check, aren't you too busy to keep posting here? PLEASE?

Sep 05, 2016
Sorry that's mass not matter.

Same difference. Even with "space has mass" it doesn't work. The Earth would be continually spiralling int the sun. All atoms would continually emit radiation. And the distribution for DM observation still wouldn't match.

This is as much of a non-starter of a theory as I've ever seen.

Sep 05, 2016
All atoms would continually emit radiation. And the distribution for DM observation still wouldn't match.

This is as much of a non-starter of a theory as I've ever seen.
Atoms are formed from quantized matter. Quantized matter radiates not continually but in quantized steps. Start with that.

Sep 05, 2016
The Earth would be continually spiralling int the sun.
Think you're onto something here. Our final destination is the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Sep 05, 2016
Our final destination is the black hole at the center of our galaxy.
Actually the final destination of the moon is crashing into the earth but the route is a bit circuitous because it is now receding from the earth. I saw it on the science channel so it must be true.

Sep 05, 2016
Actually the final destination of the moon is crashing into the earth but the route is a bit circuitous because it is now receding from the earth...
I don't really know about the crashing part but I can say when the tides come in they will really come in. Whole continents will be flooded at once.

Sep 05, 2016
Quantized matter radiates not continually but in quantized steps. Start with that.
Maybe I'm being too picky here. Matter radiates continuously in discrete steps. But it's also being created continuously by for example, black holes, lightening, and whatever creates cosmic rays, Happy Labor Day. :)

Sep 05, 2016
Hi Zzzzzzzz. :)
Reality Check, aren't you too busy to keep posting here? PLEASE?
Too busy to post every day like I used to, yes. Now I just read only and post occasionally if my break is longer than usual. I hope you are well, mate. And that you've learned some interesting things since the last time. Cheers. :)

Sep 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC, You are accusing the very DISCOVERERS of the matter of a cover up, preferring job security to a Noble prize. On top of that, you don't present ANY science based argument that their conclusions are wrong. That is I N S A N E.
No mate, they're not "insane" (see what I did there?). I explicitly said they are working in an DM/BB inculcated paradigm which subtly (but every effectively) limits their 'allowable' explanations options due to publish peer review expectations and also just plain CONFIRMATION BIASED interpretations/conclusions.

The fact you ignored/evaded my mention of "confirmation bias" (I explicitly pointed to it) and now come back with your own 'confirmation biased' reading of what I wrote, perfectly demonstrates insidious nature of that all-too-human foible even the most educated PhDs have been known to fall prey to (Bicep2 also perfectly demonstrated ever-present possibility for confirmation biased etc 'data analysis/interpretation').

:)

Sep 05, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)
@RC
I N S A N E. That is what your statements are.
You are blinded by grotesque narcissism.
Contribute to science by having your head examined.
Come on, mate. Really. :)

Since when was it "insane" to point out the proven fact of confirmation bias; as clearly demonstrated by Bicep2 team; and now you. It is a well known dangerous trap for the unwary and all-too-human scientist. Didn't your PhD instructor warn you of that on your very first day? If not, then they should have!

Anyway, mate, you're much to prone to default to name-calling in lieu of actual counter arguments which actually address what I point out dispassionately.

So, maybe it's time you took your own 'advice', mate? Maybe? Just in case the problem lay with your reading/reacting? Maybe?

Seriously, Phys1, a real physicist should ALWAYS PAUSE to consider all possible faults/flaws which may affect complex data analysis/interpretation; especially ever present potential for confirmation bias. :)

Sep 05, 2016
Even if it did (which it doesn't) then that wouldn't explain the uneven distribution of DM observed.


If it's been "observed" there are pics. Care to share them with us? Or are you gonna pull a Schneibo who has pics of BHs but refuses to share them with us?

Sep 05, 2016
"Space has mass" does not really mean anything at all.
Maybe weight. Would that help? Check out http://www.onbein...ipt/5241 "...space weighs something...most of the energy in the universe resides in empty space." Perhaps we are kind of like an afterthought.

Sep 06, 2016
Quantized matter radiates not continually but in quantized steps. Start with that.

Stop. Just stop. It makes no sense. Mass has inertia. If space were to contain mass it would slow the Earth and the Moon and everything else down.
Actually the final destination of the moon is crashing into the earth

And 5 seconds on google would have shown you that the Moon is actually moving away from the Earth by 4cm a year. Hint: when you have a theory, try to check if it matches observation. If it doesn't it is a bad theory. (Never mind about predictions. That's the second stage that comes into play once a theory matches all past observations. But your theory already fails at the first stage.)

ut it's also being created continuously by for example, black holes, lightening, and whatever creates cosmic rays,

Erm, no, no and...no?

Sep 06, 2016
Stop. Just stop. It makes no sense. Mass has inertia.


OK then, demonstrate the "inertia" of DM from those pics of "observed" DM you claim to have seen.

Zwicky's predicted halos of DM surrounding Spiral Galaxies has failed miserably, so demonstrate for us the next chapter in locating 80-95% of the so-called "missing universe". Here's a hint where not to look: Black Holes.

Read Stephan Hawking's press release in April 2016 about the non-existence of BHs, and then try to convince those of us who professionally work in the fields of Nuclear Science why you with a Biology degree are so much more knowledgeable than we are or smarter than Hawking. Hey, you up to all this?

Sep 06, 2016
Benni needs "pics" He does not like all text.
Please someone draw Beethoven's Fifth for him.


After all, when someone makes claims to having seen something that is easily reproduced visually that would support claims they make, why should I take the words of your "text" for anything? It is a truism that "a picture is worth a thousand words" (or more), that is so long as the pic has not been through the customary "airbrushing" process to create halo highlights for the presumed locations of zany Zwicky's Cosmic Fairy Dust.

Sep 06, 2016
Mass has inertia. If space were to contain mass it would slow the Earth and the Moon and everything else down.
Right. You're catching on. Hang in there. The lowest energy state in the universe is when everything slows down and falls into one giant black hole. Our ultimate destination. Cheers.

Sep 06, 2016
Right. You're catching on. Hang in there. The lowest energy state in the universe is when everything slows down and falls into one giant black hole. Our ultimate destination. Cheers.

Do you even stop to think about the stupid you are typing? For some reason I have my doubts.

Here's a pro-tip: If you have a theory - see what it predicts. Then go out and make a test. If it doesn't hold up to a test the theory is wrong. End of story. Your theory predicts things that aren't observed.

You seem like one of those guys who just randomly posts brainfarts and expects others to work out what they mean (and - dear gods - there are truly enough of those idiots on here).

No. Posting on a science site doesn't make you smart.The only thing it does is: it makes it more likely that you come in contact with smart people who realize how dumb you are much faster than everyone else.

Bravo. You have succeeded.

Sep 06, 2016
...the Moon is actually moving away from the Earth by 4cm a year. Hint: when you have a theory, try to check if it matches observation.
Right. Right now, anyways. Best to get the full story and watch the science channel as noted above.

Sep 06, 2016
Your theory predicts things that aren't observed.
That's what happens when you're dealing with long range predictions. As they do in cosmology. Deal with it.

Sep 06, 2016
Post totals so far for this thread...

Benni: posts=8; 1.6 / 5 (28)
someone11235813: posts=1; 5 / 5 (1)
barakn: posts=1; 3.4 / 5 (5)
shavera: posts=1; 2.3 / 5 (6)
ursiny33: posts=1; 1 / 5 (5)
tinitus: posts=14; 1 / 5 (47)
Gigel: posts=4; 5 / 5 (23)
Phys1: posts=23; 4.2 / 5 (96)
JongDan: posts=1; 5 / 5 (1)
Seeker2: posts=20; 0.6 / 5 (7)
andylasttry: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
RNP: posts=6; 4.1 / 5 (30)
RealityCheck: posts=8; 1.6 / 5 (26)
big_hairy_jimbo: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
BurnBabyBurn: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
antialias_physorg: posts=4; 5 / 5 (7)
Zzzzzzzz: posts=1; 5 / 5 (1)

Sep 07, 2016
The lowest energy state in the universe is when everything slows down and falls into one giant black hole. Our ultimate destination. Cheers.
I should qualify that. Everything refers to visible matter only.

Sep 07, 2016
Zwicky's predicted halos of DM surrounding Spiral Galaxies has failed miserably, so demonstrate for us the next chapter in locating 80-95% of the so-called "missing universe". Here's a hint where not to look: Black Holes.

Read Stephan Hawking's press release in April 2016 about the non-existence of BHs, and then try to convince those of us who professionally work in the fields of Nuclear Science why you with a Biology degree are so much more knowledgeable than we are or smarter than Hawking. Hey, you up to all this?
Right. I would redefine black holes as a void in spacetime and its associated mass/energy. http://scitation....,GGH3A,1

Sep 07, 2016
Right. I would redefine black holes as a void in spacetime and its associated mass/energy. http://scitation....,GGH3A,1
Sorry about that misquote. Black holes are not a void in spacetime, only its associated mass/energy. http://www.nature...-1.14583

Sep 07, 2016
Space itself has matter, which is about as dark as it gets.

Even if it did (which it doesn't) then that wouldn't explain the uneven distribution of DM observed.
If you believe in the even distribution of DM that would be like believing in the even distribution of moisture in the atmosphere. Or so it seems.

Sep 07, 2016
Right. I would redefine black holes as a void in spacetime and its associated mass/energy.
Perhaps we should say its associated DM.

Sep 07, 2016
Post totals so far for this thread...
Just curious; what is that in aid of?
Hopefully everyone who participates in the forum. I was in the middle of a stupid back-and-forth with RealityCheck when I saw this post from you:
How can people not learn from experience or others' best practices? Rebutting trolls does not work...
So as a way to rebut them indirectly I thought there should be an authoritative, objective way to give everyone an unbiased sense of their performance. What I'd like to do is provide a way to rate comments based on science content and topic relevance, and the post totals is a first step – now that I have the easy part done, I'm going to work on routines that will cross-reference comment content with both the text in the articles (to give points for topic relevance) and with a dictionary of science terms and relevant scientific papers (to give points for science content). That part may take a while. Any suggestions are welcome...

Sep 07, 2016
barakn: there's no such thing as 'energy' as if it's a kind of thing you can turn something into. Energy is not a stuff to be made or destroyed or moved. It's a number, a calculated value, that, in many circumstances stays constant over time, which is the benefit of this number. -shavera
Re-read what I said. I mentioned that the x-rays had an energy equivalent to the mass in the original particles. I never directly said or implied that there was energy somehow running around rampant on its own. Read the wiki article on mass-energy equivalence before spouting off like a beached whale. https://en.wikipe...ivalence I would also like to thank the asshats that gave my post a 1 rating even though I was only succinctly summarizing a current theory without subjecting anyone to my own opinion on whether that theory, or dark matter in general, holds any weight.

Sep 07, 2016
Any suggestions are welcome...
You could, if you wish, paste your posts into Excel and form a list of all the words someone has posted. For example for you I get:

(to
(to
a
a
a
a
a
a
an
an
and
and
and
and
andylasttry:
antialias_physorg:
Any
are
articles
articles
authoritative,
back-and-forth
barakn:
based
be
Benni:
big_hairy_jimbo:
both
BurnBabyBurn:
comment
comments
content
content
content).
cross-reference
dictionary
do
done,
easy
everyone
everyone
far
first
for
for
for
forum.
from
Gigel:
give
give
give
going
have
Hopefully
I
I
I
I
I'd
I'm
in
in
in
indirectly
is
is
JongDan:
like
may
middle
now
objective
of
of
of
on
on
papers
part
part
participates
performance.
Phys1:
points
points
post
post
Post
provide
etc.

Sep 07, 2016
barakn:...When two particles annihilate, they do so by *coupling* to some other particle. The classic example of electron positron is the simplest, because they almost always couple with photons since they're so low in mass. -shavera

You appear to be implying that the "some other particle" has to pre-exist and collide with the two anti-particles in order for annihilation to occur. First, there has to be more than one particle in order to conserve momentum. Second, the "some other particle"s are typically virtual particles. Particle-antiparticle annihilation would be practically impossible if they had to collide with two other real particles simultaneously.

Sep 08, 2016
barakn... The classic example of electron positron is the simplest, because they almost always couple with photons since they're so low in mass. But they could, in principle couple to other particles like W or Z bosons. Quarks can, in addition to those mentioned, also couple to gluons, and they can all couple to the Higgs boson. Essentially, all 'annihilation' doesn't always mean photons. -shavera
You appear to be unaware of the context of the conversation, which was about x-rays with an energy of 3.5 keV. This corresponds to only 1/146th the mass of an electron. This implies dark matter particles so light that their collision (unless they have unusually high kinetic energy) can only produce photons or neutrinos. Your mention of other particles was off topic.

Sep 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :) Sorry I have been busy and couldn't reply sooner.
@RC
You confound confirmation bias and evidence.
The scientists have the evidence, you have the confirmation bias.
The Bicep2 team had the confirmation bias, and I had the evidence of their confirmation bias (and so did every objective scientist observing their 'evidence' and their biased 'interpretation' of manifestly inadequate data). Phys1, you seem to be in denial of the high probability of error even by professionals when they fall into the trap I mentioned which your own Physics instructor should have warned you about on your very first day of lessons. Mate, if you are not going to be any more objective than those you attack personally, then you are no better than they; and only provide them ammunition to attack you personally because of your in-denial state which facilitates your own fall into the confirmation bias trap when objective assessment of the data is required. Be better than they, mate. :)

Sep 08, 2016
You could, if you wish, paste your posts into Excel and form a list of all the words someone has posted.
Thanks, good idea Seeker2, I'm actually using Open Office, I copy/paste the whole comment section into a text document and then run the macro from inside the "Basic IDE". I'll do the same with the articles and scientific papers, and from that environment (basic) I have all the functionality of both databases and spreadsheets to work with, in addition to being able to make customized forms/dialogs tailored for the purpose.

I was hoping to make use of existing dictionary extensions but so far I've only found one for Chemistry (with 50k entries); since lots of the relevant terms are multiple words (e.g., "dark matter", "galactic bulge", etc.) it's looking like I'll be building a couple custom lexicons, one for relevant terms, and one for common words (so as to avoid giving points for words like "a, and, have, is, that, the, to", etc.)

Sep 08, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

Seriously, mate, you have a problem (your above self-serving incorrect 'versions' re what did/did not happen, and what/who is/has confirmation bias or not).

The reality is:

- Bicep2 exercise/methodology/execution was confirmation biased at all stages (now agreed).

- I defer to IR astronomy discoveries re LOTS of newly found Ordinary Matter previously 'dark'; I pointed out the 'ordinary matter' explanations in the discussion I had with Da Schneib et al; my ideas are increasingly confirmed by those IR discoveries, so NO confirmation bias on my part; and it was always the onus on 'exotic' DM proponents to prove their claims (which are now being falsified by recent IR discoveries; but 'exotic' DM confirmation bias still strong in you/them).

- My original post did NOT fault these X-ray findings. I merely pointed out (1) 'targeted sources' X-ray signals would be swamped by local and intermediate sources/processes; and (2) hence why IR better.

Ok now, mate? :)

Sep 08, 2016
- Bicep2 exercise/methodology/execution was confirmation biased at all stages (now agreed).
No, you don't know what you're talking about at all stages. In an interview back in March, 2015 with Jamie Bock (professor of physics at Caltech, senior research scientist at JPL, and one of the leaders of BICEP2 collaboration), he was asked, "How confident are you that you will ultimately find conclusive evidence for primordial gravitational waves and the signature of cosmic inflation?" And his answer was, "I don't have an opinion about whether or not we will find a gravitational wave signal—that is why we are doing the measurement!"

cont'd >

Sep 08, 2016
> cont'd

You also appear to be oblivious to BICEP3, about which Bock stated, "To better subtract the galaxy, we need better data. We aren't going to get more data from Planck because the mission has finished... At 95 GHz, Keck and BICEP3 should surpass BICEP2's 150 GHz sensitivity by the end of this year, … This all adds up to make the coming years very exciting."

You really should read the whole interview at Sean Carroll's blog here: http://www.prepos...-bicep2/

Sep 09, 2016
Anyway, we are discussing here the confirmational bias of RC.
Good one, ain't that the truth?

Here's an updated post total –

Benni: posts=8; 1.8 / 5 (29)
someone11235813: posts=1; 5 / 5 (2)
barakn: posts=4; 2.1 / 5 (6)
shavera: posts=1; 2.3 / 5 (6)
ursiny33: posts=1; 1 / 5 (5)
tinitus: posts=14; 1 / 5 (47)
Gigel: posts=4; 5 / 5 (27)
Phys1: posts=26; 4.4 / 5 (117)
JongDan: posts=1; 5 / 5 (1)
Seeker2: posts=26; 0.7 / 5 (8)
andylasttry: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
RNP: posts=6; 4.3 / 5 (36)
RealityCheck: posts=10; 1.7 / 5 (30)
big_hairy_jimbo: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
BurnBabyBurn: posts=2; 5 / 5 (2)
antialias_physorg: posts=4; 5 / 5 (13)
Zzzzzzzz: posts=1; 5 / 5 (2)
Protoplasmix: posts=5; 3 / 5 (4)

A zero for an unrated post sure doesn't help the average... maybe they shouldn't be included in the score? Also noticed an unrated accidental double post in one thread, shouldn't have been counted, will fix that...

Sep 09, 2016
Hi Phys1, Protoplasmix. :)

Phys1:
Anyway, we are discussing here the confirmational bias of RC.
You just proved my point about the danger of confirmation bias and in-denial/projecting syndrome. I point out where those exercises/claims/scientists were vulnerable to confirmation bias (intentional or unintentional). What do you do? You ignore that and accuse the messenger instead. Typical demonstration of the ever present dangers of confirmation bias and denial/projecting syndrome. Were you in Bicep2 team by any chance, Phys1?

Protoplasmix:

I am perfectly aware of Bicep3; and Planck collaboration as well. And whatever initial intentions, execution of that original Bicep2 exercise was a fiasco. Anyone trying to rewrite that bit of history is in denial of what actually happened. And your
Good one, ain't that the truth?
in reply to Phys1's in denial/projecting and accusing the messenger, confirms your own confirmation bias etc. Incestuous confirmation bias etc.

Sep 09, 2016
Hi Phys1. :)

You conflating contexts/discussion points, mate:

CONTEXT ONE: The above article agrees with me about the nature of the previously 'unseen' matter and its X-Ray signals being NOT 'exotic' DM signature. Then I made my point as to why X-Ray searches won't reveal all the material because X-Rays from local/intermediate sources/processes would swamp the distant X-Ray signals; and hence better to use IR scopes/spectrum as increasingly being done now.

CONTEXT TWO: Re failed 'exotic' DM efforts; plus reality fact that Ordinary DM, as I predicted, based on science not hypothesis, now being found all over, in huge quantities/distributions (much, much more than the 100 billion SMs you 'used'). Making previous 'exotic' DM based estimates, 'interpretations' for galaxy/cluster etc motions, OBSOLETE. Moreover the 'delay/confirmation bias' problem with researchers/writers still making old assertions/claims that are now being falsified at every turn of IR scopes!

We good? :)

Sep 09, 2016
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am fine and dandy me, thanks for asking.

If you could take a moment out from your confrontational biased stuffs, could you answer the question for me? It's the same one like you never answered the other dozen times I asked. You were too busy telling me you were too busy to fit my question in.

I still wonder what your NON-Keplerian-Orbit is since your one is different from the usual ones you find all over the interweb.

What is the Really-Skippy-NON-Keplerian-Orbits? And is it something you invented your self for your book about the TOES? Like your new cyphering? Or was it something that a Real-Scientist-Skippy somewhere came up with and wasn't using it so he let you borrow him?

Sep 09, 2016
@shavera:
So if dark matter self-annihilates, and we detect that through photons, then it means dark-matter annihilates by coupling to some kind of normal matter, which in turn produces photons as an end product.
So if dark matter self-annihilates why would it have to couple to some kind of normal matter?

Sep 09, 2016
It doesn't *have* to couple to some kind of normal matter, it only has to if we have any hope of seeing direct evidence of its annihilation via photons. It could very well self-annihilate into some other kind of dark matter or dark energy or something, and we just couldn't see it then.

But the point is that every annihilation is a coupling where the energy of some pair of particles is transferred into the energy of a new pair of particles, and we can't just naively assume the new particles are photons as the previous poster seemed to do.

Sep 09, 2016
But I also clearly misread their comments and responded to what is a common misconception I read here and elsewhere, even if they, themselves weren't particularly guilty of it. So that's on me, for sure.

Sep 09, 2016
cont
Anyway I think we can confirm without bias that nothing can self-annihilate? Just asking.

Sep 10, 2016
But the point is that every annihilation is a coupling where the energy of some pair of particles is transferred into the energy of a new pair of particles,...
That's interesting. Do you have an example?

Sep 12, 2016
Take the simplest example: electrons and positrons both couple to photons through the electromagnetic interaction, when an electron and positron collide, they donate their total energy (E^2 = (pc)^2 +(mc^2)^2) to a pair of newly created photons.

But you could have other processes too. Quarks couple to gluons through the strong force. A quark and antiquark could collide (say when you're colliding protons) and each donate their energy of the collision to a pair of new gluons. The gluons in turn can create more gluons through some details of the strong force, and those can create new quarks and gluons and so on. This is why, in proton collisions, we often see 'jets' of particles exiting a collision rather than a pair of photons or other decay products.


Sep 12, 2016
...when an electron and positron collide, they donate their total energy (E^2 = (pc)^2 +(mc^2)^2) to a pair of newly created photons.
Which part of this total energy comes from the electron and which part from the positron?

Sep 12, 2016
Anyway, we are discussing here the confirmational bias of RC.
Good one, ain't that the truth?

Here's an updated post total –

Benni: posts=8; 1.8 / 5 (29)
someone11235813: posts=1; 5 / 5 (2)
barakn: posts=4; 2.1 / 5 (6)
shavera: posts=1; 2.3 / 5 (6)
ursiny33: posts=1; 1 / 5 (5)
tinitus: posts=14; 1 / 5 (47)
Gigel: posts=4; 5 / 5 (27)
Phys1: posts=26; 4.4 / 5 (117)
JongDan: posts=1; 5 / 5 (1)
Seeker2: posts=26; 0.7 / 5 (8)
andylasttry: posts=1; 0 / 5 (not rated yet)
RNP: posts=6; 4.3 / 5 (36)
RealityCheck: posts=10; 1.7 / 5 (30)
big_hairy_jimbo: posts=1; 5 / 5 (3)
BurnBabyBurn: posts=2; 5 / 5 (2)
antialias_physorg: posts=4; 5 / 5 (13)
Zzzzzzzz: posts=1; 5 / 5 (2)
Protoplasmix: posts=5; 3 / 5 (4)
How does this relate to the confirmational bias of RC, if indeed it does?

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