Team simulates a magnetar to seek dark matter particle

October 7, 2016 by Jennifer Chu, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ABRACADABRA (A Broadband/Resonant Approach to Cosmic Axion Detection with an Amplifying B-field Ring Apparatus), consists of a series of magnetic coils, wound in the shape of a toroid, or donut, which is then encased in a layer of superconducting metal and kept at temperatures just above absolute zero. The scientists plan to use a highly sensitive magnetometer, placed inside the donut hole, to detect any signs of axions’ influence. Credit: Daniel Winklehner

MIT physicists are proposing a new experiment to detect a dark matter particle called the axion. If successful, the effort could crack one of the most perplexing unsolved mysteries in particle physics, as well as finally yield a glimpse of dark matter.

Axions are hypothetical elementary particles that are thought to be among the lightest particles in the universe—about one-quintillionth the size of a proton. These ultralight particles are virtually invisible, yet if they exist, and other yet-unobserved particles may make up 80 percent of the material in the universe, in the form of .

In a paper published online in Physical Review Letters, the MIT team proposes an experiment to detect axions by simulating an extreme astrophysical phenomenon known as a magnetar—a type of neutron star that generates an immensely powerful magnetic field. The physicists reasoned that in the presence of an axion such a huge magnetic field should waver ever so slightly, producing a second, vastly smaller magnetic field as a signature of the axion itself.

The team consists of MIT associate professor of physics Jesse Thaler, MIT Pappalardo Fellow Benjamin Safdi, and Yonatan Kahn PhD '15, now a postdoc at Princeton University. Together, they designed an experiment to recreate the physics of a magnetar in a controlled laboratory environment, using technology borrowed from magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

The core of the experiment, which they've named ABRACADABRA (A Broadband/Resonant Approach to Cosmic Axion Detection with an Amplifying B-field Ring Apparatus), consists of a series of magnetic coils, wound in the shape of a toroid, or donut, which is then encased in a layer of superconducting metal and kept in a refrigerator at temperatures just above absolute zero, to minimize external noise. The scientists plan to use a highly sensitive magnetometer, placed inside the donut hole, to detect any signs of axions' influence.

"Axions are very strange, counterintuitive particles," Thaler says. "They're extremely light, with feeble interactions, and yet this particle may dominate the matter budget of the universe and be five times more abundant by mass than ordinary matter. So we really had to think hard on whether these particles are in principle detectable using current technology. It's extremely daunting."

A "tantalizing" particle

If they are detected, axions may also explain an outstanding dilemma in , known as the Strong CP (charge parity) problem: Since the 1970s, scientists have grown increasingly puzzled over what Safdi describes as "the indifference of neutrons to electric fields." Neutrons are elementary particles that are found in the nucleus of almost every atom in matter, and they do not carry a net charge.

"We don't expect neutrons to accelerate in the presence of an electric field because they don't carry electric charge, but you might expect them to rotate," Safdi says. "That's because we expect them to have an , where you can think of a neutron having a plus charge on one side and a minus charge on the other. But from our current understanding, this rotation effect does not exist, whereas theory says it should."

A sketch of the ABRACADABRA toroidal magnet. A constant magnetic field circulating around the toroid can interact with axion dark matter to produce a small oscillating magnetic flux through the center. In the absence of axion dark matter, this flux would be zero. Credit: Daniel Winklehner

Scientists have hypothesized that this bizarre effect may be explained by the axion, which would somehow remove a neutron's electric dipole moment. If so, the axion would modify electric and magnetic phenomena in a way that could be detectable experimentally.

"It's very tantalizing to say there might be a particle that serves this deep purpose, and even more so if we were to detect the presence of these particles in the form of dark matter," Thaler says.

The hunt is on

Currently, Thaler says most axion hunting has been carried out by researchers at the University of Washington who are running the Axion Dark Matter Experiment, or ADMX. The experiment uses a resonant microwave cavity, set within a large superconducting magnet, to detect very weak conversions of axions to microwave photons. The experiment is tuned to look for axions within a specific range of around one quadrillionth the mass of a proton.

Thaler and his team realized that they could extend this range, and look for much smaller, lighter , on the order of one quintillionth the mass of a proton, by recreating the physics of magnetars, in the lab.

"The Strong CP problem is associated with whether a neutron's spin responds to electric effects, and you can kind of think of a magnetar as one gigantic spin with big magnetic fields," Thaler explains. "If axions are coming in and changing the properties of nuclear matter to resolve the Strong CP problem, maybe axions can interact with this magnetar and allow you to see it in a new way. So the subtle effects of axions should be amplified."

The team's prototype design is surprisingly small—"about the palm of your hand," Safdi says. The researchers, who are theoretical physicists by training, are now working with experimentalists at MIT to build the prototype, which is designed to generate a baseline of about 1 tesla, comparable to current MRI machines. If axions are present, that field should waver slightly, producing a very tiny oscillation at a frequency that is directly related to the axion's mass. Using a high-precision magnetometer, Thaler hopes to pick up that frequency and ultimately use it to identify the axion's size.

"Only recently have there been many good ideas to search for [low-frequency axions]," says Gray Rybka, an assistant professor of physics at the University of Washington and an ADMX researcher, who was not involved in the research. "The experiment proposed here builds on previous ideas and, if the authors are correct, may be the most practical experimental configuration that can explore some of the plausible lower-frequency axion regimes."

"We have an instrument that's sensitive to many wavelengths, and we can tickle it with an axion of one particular wavelength, and ABRACADABRA will resonate," Thaler says. "And we will be going into uncharted territory, where we could possibly see dark matter from this prototype. That would be amazing."

Explore further: Physicist suggests new experiments could make or break axion as dark matter theory

More information: Yonatan Kahn et al. Broadband and Resonant Approaches to Axion Dark Matter Detection, Physical Review Letters (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.141801

Related Stories

Dark matter does not contain certain axion-like particles

April 22, 2016

Researches at Stockholm University are getting closer to light dark-matter particle models. Observations rule out some axion-like particles in the quest for the content of dark matter. The article is now published in the ...

CAST explores the dark side of the universe

September 21, 2015

Over the next 10 days, CERN's Axion Solar Telescope (CAST) will receive the Sun's rays. The Sun's course is visible from the window in the CAST experimental hall just twice a year, in March and September. The scientists will ...

Recommended for you

Atoms may hum a tune from grand cosmic symphony

April 19, 2018

Researchers playing with a cloud of ultracold atoms uncovered behavior that bears a striking resemblance to the universe in microcosm. Their work, which forges new connections between atomic physics and the sudden expansion ...

Integrating optical components into existing chip designs

April 19, 2018

Two and a half years ago, a team of researchers led by groups at MIT, the University of California at Berkeley, and Boston University announced a milestone: the fabrication of a working microprocessor, built using only existing ...

119 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jalmy
1.5 / 5 (16) Oct 07, 2016
One more failure in the attempt to detect what doesn't exist. Even if they do detect axions so what, they still will not be able to correlate them with dark matter. Other than saying well, they exist so maybe half of the universe is made out of them. Which is ludicrous. Good luck detecting axions, but ffs leave dark nonsense out of it.
Gigel
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
Gigel
4.7 / 5 (14) Oct 07, 2016
One more failure in the attempt to detect what doesn't exist.

They haven't tried to detect'em yet. It's just a theoretical proposal. And since they weren't ruled out yet, one can't say they don't exist.
jalmy
1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016

They haven't tried to detect'em yet. It's just a theoretical proposal. And since they weren't ruled out yet, one can't say they don't exist.


No kidding. I was implying dark matter doesn't exist. Axions very well may. But if they do, it I am guessing it will not be in sufficient scale for it to be Thee dark matter. That was the predicted failure I was alluding to. One can make any prediction one wishes only time can tell if they were right or wrong. As it has been five minutes and you have been proven unable to actually read what someone wrote before commenting on it.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 07, 2016
These ultralight particles are virtually invisible
....."virtually invisible" making it sound like these sly particles have been uncovered & presumed to exist in spite of their hide'n'seek games they've been playing with cosmologists to uncover them

yet if they exist, axions and other yet-unobserved particles
......."if they exist"........What? Wait, in the previous part of the sentence it was imputed these clever little particles do exist but here they are stating "if"?

may make up 80 percent of the material in the universe, in the form of dark matter
......Wow, AXIONS are an hypothesis, DARK MATTER is another...........adding two hypotheses together somehow creates a REALITY in the form of what OBSERVED EVIDENCE? The "inferred gravity" hypothesis?

So, I'm supposed to look in the mirror every morning & realize that in fact I'm not viewing 80% of the remainder of my body based on three different hypotheses?

RNP
4.7 / 5 (15) Oct 07, 2016
@jalmy


They haven't tried to detect'em yet. It's just a theoretical proposal. And since they weren't ruled out yet, one can't say they don't exist.


No kidding. I was implying dark matter doesn't exist. Axions very well may. But if they do, it I am guessing it will not be in sufficient scale for it to be Thee dark matter. That was the predicted failure I was alluding to. One can make any prediction one wishes only time can tell if they were right or wrong.....


And why should we give any credence to what you "imply" or the results of your "guessing" without a shred of supporting evidence?

P.S. Before you start, there IS supporting evidence for the effect we call DM even if it is not yet considered definitive.
Benni
1 / 5 (10) Oct 07, 2016
One more failure in the attempt to detect what doesn't exist.


They haven't tried to detect'em yet. It's just a theoretical proposal. And since they weren't ruled out yet, one can't say they don't exist.


.....well then gig, why don't we simply carry out your logic to another obvious & logical conclusion: God has never been detected & is a theoretical proposal. So until such a theoretical proposal can't be ruled out, then one can't say God does not exist & should as the case for Dark Matter be presumed to exist, even though there is no evidence for it (other than inferred gravity?).

jalmy
1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
"not yet considered definitive." You mean in such as way as to show the existence of a single particle of a substance you say makes up the majority of the universe?
Benni
1 / 5 (9) Oct 07, 2016
And why should we give any credence to what you "imply" or the results of your "guessing" without a shred of supporting evidence?
......or you for your dimwitted inferred gravitational anomalies.

Phys1
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 07, 2016

So, I'm supposed to look in the mirror every morning & realize that in fact I'm not viewing 80% of the remainder of my body based on three different hypotheses?


80% of your brains are certainly missing.
......or you for your dimwitted inferred gravitational anomalies.

Maybe more.
Zorcon
4.3 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2016
@jalmy

And why should we give any credence to what you "imply" or the results of your "guessing" without a shred of supporting evidence?

I think jalmy means it's easier to guess than to experiment. So if facts don't matter, guessing is better.

To each his/her own, but some of us are more interested in the results (accurate answers) than in minimizing effort.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2016
So if facts don't matter, guessing is better.


"Team simulates a magnetar to seek dark matter particle"

......sure, like guessing that a "magnetar" can be "simulated" here on planet Earth using that gadget in the pic just beneath the title of the article.
Zorcon
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
@Benni
why don't we simply carry out your logic to another obvious & logical conclusion: God has never been detected & is a theoretical proposal. Until such a theoretical proposal can't be ruled out, one can't say God does not exist & should as the case for Dark Matter be presumed to exist, even though there is no evidence for it (other than inferred gravity?).


Bingo! You just figured out the scientific method:
Presume nothing. Hypothesize & test. Refine & repeat. All knowledge is provisional but each iteration gets you closer to the truth.

No scientist "presumes" dark matter exists. It (with general relativity) is simply the most plausible hypothesis to explain what we observe.

It is also why science does not even try to say whether or not God exists. It's implausible to say the least but untestable, so outside the realm of science.

If your beliefs are true you have nothing to fear, because science gets closer to the truth with each iteration.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 07, 2016
.....well then gig, why don't we simply carry out your logic to another obvious & logical conclusion: God has never been detected & is a theoretical proposal. So until such a theoretical proposal can't be ruled out, then one can't say God does not exist & should as the case for Dark Matter be presumed to exist, even though there is no evidence for it (other than inferred gravity?).

What is the "inferred" property of a god?
Phys1
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
whether or not God exists. It's implausible to say the least but untestable, so outside the realm of science.

I think it is a testable idea and it failed all tests.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2016
The irony that they name their apparatus ABRACADABRA to search for the magical DM via the other magical phenomenon the magnetar.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 07, 2016
Maybe a more appropriate term would be ABRACADARKBRA...

Or DARKBRACADABRA or ABOMINATIONOFSCIENCEBRA.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 07, 2016
If your beliefs are true you have nothing to fear, because science gets closer to the truth with each iteration.
.......then God & Dark Matter are presently on equal footing with one another? None of the constituents of either have been found, but man-o-man do we ever have the "inferred effects" that both exist? It's sounding a lot like the two are one in the same, only the titles are different & neither can be found.

ursiny33
3 / 5 (2) Oct 07, 2016
Magnastars have two magnetic fields how you going to replicate that, it has a surface magnetic field and an electron orbiting field whose electron never get to merge with the surface field by the shear number of them , because the the surface field only has a finite nuber of iron atom to electron exchange with at the speed of light , there are more electrons held by the mass's gravity then that it can exchange in time with iron atomson its surface
ursiny33
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2016
It has a surface magnetic field and shroud magnetic field in orbit around it held by gravity
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2016
No scientist "presumes" dark matter exists. It (with general relativity) is simply the most plausible hypothesis to explain what we observe.
Don't think dark matter travels at relativistic speeds. I would pick Newtonian gravity. And the cause of Newtonian gravity? Gradients in the expansion of spacetime (which doesn't include matter). So matter is collected into forms which minimize their effect on the expansion (minimum energy state of the U). But who knows? Axions could be the reason for expanding spacetime, if you're really looking for a reason. (:-)>
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 07, 2016
No scientist "presumes" dark matter exists. It (with general relativity) is simply the most plausible hypothesis to explain what we observe.
..........right, but we're actually talking not about "scientist" but rather "asstrophysicist", big difference you know, like the PO resident ones who live here under their internet cover names so they won't be embarrassed with their zany ideas.

Benni
1 / 5 (6) Oct 07, 2016
whether or not God exists. It's implausible to say the least but untestable, so outside the realm of science.

I think it is a testable idea and it failed all tests.
.....what tests zany zwicky guy?

GaryG
1 / 5 (2) Oct 08, 2016
Maybe, this one test will unravel the differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Obviously, there is a difference. I have often observed that if anyone makes a clearly obvious statement, that one side interprets the statement completely different ( and many times opposite ) from what the other side interprets, even though
both sides heard the same words.
I believe that there is an undiscovered difference in the way the brains of conservatives and liberals are hard wired.
Phys1
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
Zwicky received a gold medal for helping orphans.
He is an example to us all.
optical
Oct 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 08, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
Zwicky received a gold medal for helping orphans.

He is an example to us all.
........of an asstrophysicist, just like you.

Phys1
3 / 5 (6) Oct 08, 2016
Benni
Do you think getting a gold medal for helping orphans deserves a downvote?
Is it you, Satan ?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 08, 2016
God & Dark Matter are presently on equal footing with one another? None of the constituents of either have been found, but man-o-man do we ever have the "inferred effects" that both exist? It's sounding a lot like the two are one in the same, only the titles are different & neither can be found.

Other than everything we see "exists", there is no inferred property of god. Subsequently, only subjective.
DM(unexplained gravitational effect), on the other hand, is a repeating, observed physical effect on the universe around us.
So - not the same at all...
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 08, 2016
Benni
Do you think getting a gold medal for helping orphans deserves a downvote?
Is it you, Satan ?


No, tell me it isn't true that you believe in "Satan" who is God's nemesis as I recall? Then you believe in God? Should I upvote you or downvote you for believing in spirit beings?
Benni
1 / 5 (8) Oct 08, 2016
DM(unexplained gravitational effect), on the other hand, is a repeating, observed physical effect on the universe around us.


You know this because you have used a gravimeter that measured 80-95% of your body missing an amount of mass that would be the equivalent of an "unexplained gravitational effect" generated by your body? Just imagine what you would look like if only you could see the rest of yourself in a mirror.

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Oct 08, 2016
You know this because you have used a gravimeter that measured 80-95% of your body missing an amount of mass that would be the equivalent of an "unexplained gravitational effect" generated by your body? Just imagine what you would look like if only you could see the rest of yourself in a mirror.

That's just stupid. I'm a vampire and can't see ANY of myself in a mirror...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Oct 09, 2016
You know this because you have used a gravimeter that measured 80-95% of your body missing an amount of mass that would be the equivalent of an "unexplained gravitational effect" generated by your body? Just imagine what you would look like if only you could see the rest of yourself in a mirror.

This comment shows you are incapable of thinking on any scale larger than yourself.
Strongly showing off your narcissistic nature.
Phys1
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2016
@Benni
So you don't recognize sarcasm.
Most apes probably outperforms you socially.
By the way Zwicky was a master of sarcasm.
Phys1
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 09, 2016
You know this because you have used a gravimeter that measured 80-95% of your body missing an amount of mass that would be the equivalent of an "unexplained gravitational effect" generated by your body? Just imagine what you would look like if only you could see the rest of yourself in a mirror.

This comment shows you are incapable of thinking on any scale larger than yourself.
Strongly showing off your narcissistic nature.

The intense, coherent, laser-like stupidity of his comments is truly amazing.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) Oct 09, 2016
@Benni
So you don't recognize sarcasm.

By the way zany Zwicky was a master of sarcasm.
......better known as his persistent foul mouthed profanity he would so elaborately put on display when he would burst onto his feet in a crowded symposium & start screaming obscenities at real scientists who disagreed with his disproven Tired Light & Dark Matter theories.

So you look in a mirror everyday & wished that grandpa Fritz's 80% missing matter theory could work in reverse, but if you'd just get off the potato chips you wouldn't need to be so defensive about your poor self image.
Merrit
2.5 / 5 (2) Oct 09, 2016
DM is really just a placeholder that arises because our current understanding of the universe through theories such as general relativity can't account for galaxy rotation or the amount of gravitational lens. In particular, there needs to be more mass than observed to account for what we see. The dominate theories for DM reconcile this discrepancy by theorizing the existence of particles that interact weakly with the observed matter and our concentrated in a halo around galaxies. This experiment hopes to discover some of these particles.

I, however, am much more in favor of DM theories such as MOND or Superfluids that question our theories to reconcile the discrepancies in our observations and theory rather than adding matter.

We as a species are limited by our technology and our location (on earth). With better technology and the ability to preform experiments in deep space (away from gravity wells) we will eventually figure it out. Until then, we just have our best guesses.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2016
Benni
Are you able to distinguish between your brain products and reality?
Your failure to recognize sarcasm is also worrying.
Maybe it is unethical to poke fun at you.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2016
Zeph,
Not sure what you are referring to with "virtual" photons, but the rest of your comment seems fairly reasonable...
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 09, 2016
Wow... gave you a millimetre and you took 10m kilometres...
not even gonna pretend to try and understand your last 4 or 5 comments...
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2016
@optical
For you to be right than the Maxwell equations would have to be wrong.
Yet they are 100% correct.
It follows that you must be wrong.
Btw what is a "wave packet soliton"? Solitons are not wave packets.
They are single solutions of nonlinear wave equations such as Sine-Gordon.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 09, 2016
Also it is "Casimir".
The Casimir effect is not caused by virtual photons but by zero point fluctuations. These phenomena are distinct.
I have no time nor desire to refute everything you say.
My lack of response should not be interpreted as agreement.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 09, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2016
@optical
You say:
......... I'm probably the only guy at the whole world, who can see it clearly: the Maxwell theory is violated with quantum mechanics and with existence of photons.


You are right! You probably ARE the only guy in the world that sees things this way. For a very good reason...... You are not living in the same world as the rest of us.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
Hmmm...just food for thought: if you understand something but can't write it down in a way so that others understand this, too, then it's 100% certain that:

a) You are incompetent at writing (and should either start to learn how to write or stop writing)
or
b) You are wrong

(so that it's not too hard to figure out for you, Zeph, I'm gonna answer this for you: you have both problems)
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
promytius1
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
Which took longer: the design of the device, or finding words to fit abracadabra...
promytius1
1 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2016
oh, and before I started reading these comments, I LIKED physics.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
Team simulates a magnetar to seek dark matter particle


See here where the dark matter creation is being simulated.
https://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q
Phys1
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 10, 2016
First of all, the photon is http://www.cft.ed...QO7.pdf, so it cannot fit the Maxwell's theory.

You need quantum mechanics to describe a photon, so QED, but this is still based on Maxwell's equations.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2016
the Casimir effect is not caused by virtual photons but by zero point fluctuations
The http://i.imgur.com/6QWPHuU.gif of this phenomena, if you allow - because you actually cannot argue in this point even by mainstream physics, not just logics.

The Coulomb potential is also caused by virtual photons. And so is therefore the van der Waals interaction. Only radiation is NOT caused by virtual photons. The reason is that QED describes everything in terms of photons. If they are not real, the are virtual.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
No. QM and QED have nothing to do with solitons.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2016
...QED describes everything in terms of photons.
I'm confused (no wisecracks please). How can QED describe e/m fields, as I presume it does, if photons carry no electric charge?
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Oct 10, 2016
if photons carry no electric charge?

Counterquestion: Ask yourself what would happen if photons did carry a charge. If you were to hold a positively charged object next to (but not in contact with) a negatively charged object the two would start to equalize their charges (a current would start to flow).

(I.e. we would not observe charges at all in this universe because they would all have been nullified soon after it came into being).
Photons carry momentum - not charge. They are a *force* carriers
https://en.wikipe...dynamics
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
4 / 5 (4) Oct 10, 2016
How can you rattle on about dozens of subject and not know that a photon does not carry charge ?
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
O. My. God.

(Dead metaphor, folks: https://en.wikipe...etaphor)
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 10, 2016
optical
What a tsunami of drivel. You are hopeless.
If the photons wouldn't get polarized with reflection under proper Brewster angle, if the number of photons of opposite spin wouldn't be equal

Yes, they would.
JimD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 10, 2016
I guess there no effort to moderate these forums.
Phys1
3 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
@JimD
You are downvoting anything remotely resembling basic physics.
Are you now complaining that moderators do not stop you?
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
if photons carry no electric charge?

Counterquestion: Ask yourself what would happen if photons did carry a charge. If you were to hold a positively charged object next to (but not in contact with) a negatively charged object the two would start to equalize their charges (a current would start to flow).
Well I did ask myself what if virtual electron-positron pairs were connected positive to negative in the form of a string. The first virtual electron in the string would be attached to a real positive charge and the last virtual positron in the string would be connected to a real negative charge. We would have a line of force and a current would start to flow as in sunspot flares.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
Well I did ask myself what if virtual electron-positron pairs were connected positive to negative in the form of a string.
We would have a line of force and a current would start to flow.


As I noted: when you put two charged objects right next to each other (e.g two capacitor plates in a vacuum) no current flows. So your theory is at odds with observation.

If theory and observation don't match then that is a 100% sure sign that the theory is wrong. (Observation trumps theory. Always)
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
Normally the photons don't mediate charge until their energy doesn't exceed the 512 MeV. Above this threshold the particle and antiparticle pairs can be formed. But if we realize, that the origin of charge is in spin, then we should admit, that the materialization of photons could run at much lower energy density, once these photons would get heavily polarized.
I think what he's saying is that virtual positron-electron pairs don't start to pass current until they become real particles. I don't think so. Once they start to pass current they may become energized to the point where they become real particles. Hence lightening and the odor of positrons in the residue.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
Well I did ask myself what if virtual electron-positron pairs were connected positive to negative in the form of a string.
We would have a line of force and a current would start to flow.


As I noted: when you put two charged objects right next to each other (e.g two capacitor plates in a vacuum) no current flows. So your theory is at odds with observation.
Yes but if you break down the vacuum with moisture for example and raise the voltage high enough current will flow. In a vacuum lines of force consisting of virtual positron-electron strings do exist but current doesn't flow until you break down the vacuum and raise the voltage high enough. I learned about that the hard way in electronics lab.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
no current flows. So your theory is at odds with observation.

Yes but if you break down the vacuum with moisture for example and raise the voltage high enough current will flow.

But not because of photons. That's a normal electron/ion flow. You get that in every battery. The photons are just the force carriers - not the charge carriers.

lines of force consisting of virtual positron-electron strings do exist

You can claim this all you want, but it is not observed (it would make the universe a VASTLY different place if it were so).

I learned about that the hard way in electronics lab.

Then you didn't learn about this thing called "insulation" and dielectrics - where even if you do break the vacuum down'* no charge flows.

Again: your theory doesn't fit with any kind of observation. Which makes it trash.

* which is a really idiotic way of putting it, BTW. You can't 'break vacuum down'
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
no current flows. So your theory is at odds with observation.

Yes but if you break down the vacuum with moisture for example and raise the voltage high enough current will flow.

But not because of photons. That's a normal electron/ion flow. You get that in every battery. The photons are just the force carriers - not the charge carriers.
I understand charge carriers must be real particles. Real particles don't just come into existence out of nowhere but through the sufficient excitation of virtual particle pairs which I suppose is the function of the photons.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
You can't 'break vacuum down'
You break down the vacuum by creating real particles out of virtual particle pairs. The vacuum naturally contains all kinds of virtual particle pairs at the current temperature of the U. That may be what they mean by a false vacuum.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Oct 11, 2016
lines of force consisting of virtual positron-electron strings do exist

You can claim this all you want, but it is not observed (it would make the universe a VASTLY different place if it were so).

I learned about that the hard way in electronics lab.

Then you didn't learn about this thing called "insulation" and dielectrics - where even if you do break the vacuum down'* no charge flows.
Insulators prevent the connection of virtual particle pairs and any force between charged plates. Conductors of course have existing charge carriers so you don't have to worry about creating real particles.
Phys1
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2016
To much bullshit. You win.
JimD
1 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
"@JimD
You are downvoting anything remotely resembling basic physics.
Are you now complaining that moderators do not stop you?"

You sound delusional.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2016
Insulators prevent the connection of virtual particle pairs and any force between charged plates

OK..I see where you're coming from...you're in the "just make bullshit up, spice it with scientese words you have heard somewhere - but don't know what they mean - and never mind if it makes sense on any level"-category

There's no point trying to educate you. Another candidate for the ignore list.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 11, 2016
complete nonsense
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 11, 2016
Insulators prevent the connection of virtual particle pairs and any force between charged plates

OK..I see where you're coming from...you're in the "just make bullshit up, spice it with scientese words you have heard somewhere - but don't know what they mean - and never mind if it makes sense on any level"-category

There's no point trying to educate you. Another candidate for the ignore list.

OK maybe you scored here. Insulators certainly have no conduction electrons. Also they must block the force-carrying photons.
Seeker2
not rated yet Oct 11, 2016
The photons are just the force carriers - not the charge carriers
This applies to virtual photons only.

Meaning real photons are the charge carriers? I don't buy it.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 11, 2016
"@JimD
You are downvoting anything remotely resembling basic physics.
Are you now complaining that moderators do not stop you?"

You sound delusional.

You sound like a bore.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Oct 11, 2016
Hi Seeker2, antialias-physorg, optical, everyone. :)

These sorts of phenomena/mechanisms fall under the categories of "superexchange mechanisms" and "displacement currents" in vacuum and material mediums/contexts.

@ Seeker2: You're on right track. The energy-space conditions are determined by local energy levels contained in a region, and can 'create' charge-/info-carrying' features from ambient energy-space content applicable if sufficient. See: http://www.cond-m...koch.pdf

@ optical: You're also on right track with "changing fields" (eg, AC voltage/current energy-space potentials). See: https://en.wikipe...able=yes

For more recent example of these types of mechanisms/phenomena, see: http://phys.org/n...tum.html

The Universal phenomena at all scales is more complex/subtle than previously imagined/understood via simplistic modeling/descriptions. It's all connected. :)
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
optical
Oct 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2016
Hi optical, everyone. :)

Yes, it's all more 'connected' than previous models/theories led many to believe. :)

For example, slowly but surely, mainstream 'critical mass' discovery/understanding of Plasmonic States of energy-space 'features/processes' in many contexts/mediums (ranging from 'empty' energy-space conditions 'vacuum' to range of materials whether 'normally conductive' or not) is leading them to (I hope) incorporate all those usually-missed complexities/subtleties which connect it all, at all scales.

Further insights than the previous links provided may be gained from these further links:

http://phys.org/n...tml#nRlv

http://phys.org/n...nas.html

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

@ All: Try to 'connect all the dots' for yourselves; if you have the needed cross-discipline info/understandings to make the reality apparent to you at this juncture. Cheers. :)
optical
Oct 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 12, 2016
Maybe, this one test will unravel the differences between Liberals and Conservatives. Obviously, there is a difference. I have often observed that if anyone makes a clearly obvious statement, that one side interprets the statement completely different ( and many times opposite ) from what the other side interprets, even though
both sides heard the same words.
I believe that there is an undiscovered difference in the way the brains of conservatives and liberals are hard wired.

It's only different versions of stupidity. One is obnoxious the other tries to do the impossible while keeping the thieves at bay.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 12, 2016
You may show a proof for anything when you begin with a false premise. There's no one intelligent enough to show real logic.

... as the world has reached a no turn back point, i.e. a definition of hell with global warming.

We should not give PhD's in stupidity, imagine, teaching archaic nonsense as fact, lol.

Tweedledee & Tweedledum
Phys1
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2016
Published in Nature April 2016: https://www.reddi..._direct/ Results demonstrated, that the canonical and spin momenta, forming the Poynting vector within field theory, manifest themselves very differently in interactions with matter.

As long as the Maxwell equations agree perfectly with the measurements, as in this case, I do not see what the excitement is about.
Seeker2
5 / 5 (1) Oct 15, 2016
There's no point trying to educate you. Another candidate for the ignore list.
Hey we need you to keep me honest, not educated. Where would we be without you?
Phys1
not rated yet Oct 15, 2016
...QED describes everything in terms of photons.
I'm confused (no wisecracks please). How can QED describe e/m fields, as I presume it does, if photons carry no electric charge?

In the current theories EM fields do not carry charge and neither do photons.
These describe the interactions _between_ charge-currents.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Oct 15, 2016
Published in Nature April 2016: https://www.reddi..._direct/ Results demonstrated, that the canonical and spin momenta, forming the Poynting vector within field theory, manifest themselves very differently in interactions with matter.

As long as the Maxwell equations agree perfectly with the measurements, as in this case, I do not see what the excitement is about.

Try a gaussian beam moving through an inhomogeneous, media, lens-like? We do that in optics, fiber! Einstein? Curved space? Sun's aura? Extent? Composition?
.. easier to bend space! Well, OK.

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

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