Is dark matter 'fuzzy'?

April 28, 2017
Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Cinestav/T.Bernal et al.; Optical: Adam Block/Mt. Lemmon SkyCenter/U. Arizona

Astronomers have used data from NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory to study the properties of dark matter, the mysterious, invisible substance that makes up a majority of matter in the universe. The study, which involves 13 galaxy clusters, explores the possibility that dark matter may be more "fuzzy" than "cold," perhaps even adding to the complexity surrounding this cosmic conundrum.

For several decades, astronomers have known about . Although it cannot be observed directly, dark does interact via gravity with normal, radiating matter (that is, anything made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons bundled into atoms). Capitalizing on this interaction, astronomers have studied the effects of dark matter using a variety of techniques, including observations of the motion of stars in , the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters, and the distribution of X-ray emitting hot gas in galaxy clusters. Dark matter has also left an imprint on the radiation left over from the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago.

However, astronomers have been struggling for decades to understand the detailed properties of dark matter. In other words, they would like to know how dark matter behaves in all environments, and, ultimately, what it is made of.

The most popular assumes that dark matter is a particle more massive than a proton that is "cold", meaning that it moves at speeds much smaller than the speed of light. This model has been successful at explaining the structure of the universe on very large scales, much bigger than galaxies, but it has problems with explaining how matter is distributed on the smaller scales of galaxies.

For example, the model predicts that the of dark matter in the center of galaxies is much higher than in surrounding regions close to the center. Because normal matter is attracted to the dark matter, it also should have a strong peak in density at the center of galaxies. However, astronomers observe that the density of both dark and normal matter in the center of galaxies is much more evenly spread out. Another issue with the cold dark matter model is that it predicts a much higher number of small galaxies orbiting around galaxies like the Milky Way than astronomers actually see.

To address these problems with the cold dark matter model, astronomers have come up alternative models where dark matter has very different properties. One such model takes advantage of the principle in quantum mechanics that each subatomic particle has a wave associated with it. If the dark matter particle has an extremely small mass, about ten thousand trillion trillion times smaller than an electron's mass, its corresponding wavelength will be about 3,000 light years. This distance from one peak of the wave to another is about one eighth of the distance between the Earth and the center of the Milky Way. By contrast, the longest wavelength of light, a radio wave, is only a few miles long.

Waves from different particles on these large scales can overlap and interfere with each other like waves on a pond, acting like a quantum system on galactic rather than atomic scales.

The large wavelength of the particles' wave means that the density of dark matter in the center of galaxies cannot be strongly peaked. Therefore to an observer outside a galaxy these particles would appear fuzzy if they could be directly detected, so this model has been called "fuzzy dark matter". Because the normal matter is attracted to the dark matter it will also be spread out over large scales. This would naturally explain the lack of a strong peak in the density of matter in the center of galaxies.

This simple model has been successful at explaining the amount and location of dark matter in . For larger galaxies, a more complicated model of fuzzy dark matter has been needed. In this model, massive concentrations of dark matter can lead to multiple quantum states (called ""), in which the can have different amounts of energy, similar to an atom with electrons in higher energy orbits. These excited states change how the density of dark matter varies with distance away from the center of the galaxy .

In a new study, a team of scientists used Chandra observations of the hot gas in 13 galaxy clusters to see if the fuzzy dark matter model works at larger scales than that of galaxies. They used the Chandra data to estimate both the amount of dark matter in each cluster and how the density of this matter varies with distance away from the center of the galaxy cluster.

The graphic shows four of the 13 galaxies clusters used in the study. The clusters are, starting at the top left and going clockwise, Abell 262, Abell 383, Abell 1413, and Abell 2390. In each of these images, X-ray data from Chandra are pink, while optical data are red, green, and blue.

As with the studies of galaxies, the simplest model of fuzzy dark matter—where all particles have the lowest possible energy—did not agree with the data. However, they found that the model where the particles had different amounts of energy—the "excited states—did give good agreement with the data. In fact, the fuzzy dark matter model may match the observations of these 13 just as well or even better than a model based on cold dark matter.

This result shows that the fuzzy dark matter model may be a viable alternative to cold dark matter, but further work is needed to test this possibility. An important effect of the excited states is to give ripples, or oscillations, in the density of dark matter as a function of distance away from the center of the cluster. This would produce ripples in the density of normal matter. The expected magnitude of these ripples is less than the current uncertainties in the data. A more detailed study is needed to test this prediction of the model.

A paper describing these results was recently accepted for publication in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and is available online. The authors are Tula Bernal (National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico City), Victor Robles (University of California, Irvine), and Tonatiuh Matos (National Polytechnic Institute).

Explore further: Team puts dark matter on the map

More information: Scalar Field Dark Matter in Clusters of Galaxies, arxiv.org/abs/1609.08644

Related Stories

Team puts dark matter on the map

March 1, 2017

A Yale-led team has produced one of the highest-resolution maps of dark matter ever created, offering a detailed case for the existence of cold dark matter—sluggish particles that comprise the bulk of matter in the universe.

Dark matter mystery deepens

October 17, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Like all galaxies, our Milky Way is home to a strange substance called dark matter. Dark matter is invisible, betraying its presence only through its gravitational pull. Without dark matter holding them together, ...

Recommended for you

Dawn of a galactic collision

December 14, 2017

A riot of colour and light dances through this peculiarly shaped galaxy, NGC 5256. Its smoke-like plumes are flung out in all directions and the bright core illuminates the chaotic regions of gas and dust swirling through ...

83 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rogerdallas
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 28, 2017
If this model is correct, I'm not sure how you could ever hope to detect a dark matter particle. Could you invert this argument and argue instead that the universe is pervaded by ultra-long wavelength energy fields of some sort, that, if they were detected as particles, would manifest as ultra low mass particles? In that case why not think of dark matter "particles" as photons associated with the field? Let's get really wild! Let's see whether we are dealing with the remains of whatever powered inflation, so attenuated today that it's residual appears as dark matter??
Tuxford
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 28, 2017
..dark matter does interact via gravity with normal, radiating matter (that is, anything made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons bundled into atoms).

Maniacs Assumption; No, Dark Matter interacts with light. Other mechanisms likely can explain galactic rotations.

..it also should have a strong peak in density at the center of galaxies. However, astronomers observe that the density of both dark and normal matter in the center of galaxies is much more evenly spread out.

Since dark matter effects on the underlying sub-quantum medium is proportional to local matter density therein.

If the dark matter particle has an extremely small mass, about ten thousand trillion trillion times smaller than an electron's mass, its corresponding wavelength will be about 3,000 light years.

Another desparate stretch for a committed math fairy.
brendafoley2309
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2017
There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.
Tuxford
1 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2017
There is evidence of the superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, it's what waves.

Yep, it is the underlying diffusive sub-quantum reactive fluid. The propagating transmutation reaction (which is the particle we observe) of the underlying diffusive sub-quantum elementals disturbs the relative concentration of the several different elemental types in a wave disturbance that precedes the propagating reaction itself. Once the reaction passes through either slit, the interference pattern there-behind ceases.
ZergSurfer
5 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2017
"No, Dark Matter interacts with light"
So, why can't we see it?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2017
Interesting. @rogerdallas, I think you may be onto something, but we're going to need more observation and more simulations to find out whether fuzzy dark matter is a good model or not.
Dingbone
Apr 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2017
Errr, "scalar waves" generally refers to "free energy" woo promulgated by Thomas Bearden, a formidable source of woo and general crank.
Dingbone
Apr 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 28, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2017
Scalar waves were coined by Nicola Tesla, Konstantin Meyl and another researchers - not just Bearden.
Tesla spent decades being fascinated by the fact that if you wound two wires opposite ways on the same core, all that came out was heat.

Ummm, duh. If you know any EE.

"Scalar waves" are woo. They're used to justify water woo, and water woo is the worst woo evar.

Scalar fields are not "scalar waves."

Sorry, @Ding, onto ignore you go. Not interested in woo-meisters. Go drink some "scalar wave" water.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2017
Just so we're clear on this, "scalar waves" are utilized by woo artists to avoid complicated and difficult vectors, and the resulting vector sums, and cross-products, which make their brains turn to mush.

When you see someone pushing "scalar waves," you can be sure you are dealing with someone who is innumerate; they can't deal with vectors.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2017
@Da Schneib.

With respect, and correct me if I'm wrong,----and with the gentlest of genuine intent at a reality-check (that being my raison d'etre of my username/function here, ie: @RealityCheck)----I would like to remind you that:

- the water-surface etc analogy (which Dingbone is employing in his explanations), was ALSO employed by Einstein himself in some of his explanations regarding 'mathematically/geometrically 'abstracting motion-in-space' analyses/predictions etc, using an equally abstract "SPACE-TIME' maths/geom construct.

- the 'scalar' aspect, which you seem to have such 'disdain' for, and which disdain you seem to feel 'justifies' insulting great scientists of the past (as well as user Dingbone above), is ALL there IS 'at root'. Only once motion-in-space can be discerned, then calculated via abstract 'space-time' analysis construct, do 'vectors' enter the analysis/perspective. In fact, at root, 'space' AND 'time' are scalar concepts.

No disrespect meant. :)
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2017
@Dingbone.
the water-surface etc analogy was ALSO employed by Einstein himself
Do you have some evidence for it? I'm not jealous about scientific priority of this concept - I just don't see any indicia, that Einstein did think this way. Such a way would solve many his own problems with space-time concept.
If I recall correctly, it was in an address Einstein delivered in 1920 at the University of Leyden. If you search that text (the English version of course!) with the keywords "surface of water" (or even just "water"), I think you will find it there (again, if I recall correctly). Good luck.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
vacuumforce
not rated yet Apr 29, 2017
The universe cant be any less fuzzier than the standard model predicts?
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nikola_milovic_378
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2017
Is dark matter 'fuzzy'?

DM is, as it always has been, just what it needs to be to fill the ad hoc parameters the dark scientists need filled. Pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo to be sure.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2017
@Captain Stumpy, @Uncle Ira.

I have been alerted to the fact you bot-voted me '1' for my above posts. May I enquire why you did that? Those posts contained reminders of known science fact re 'scalar' concepts; and also known historical fact re Einstein's use of 'water surface' analogies in his Leiden Address.

In that light, it appears your bot-voting of '1' for said posts is an egregious insult to science method/discourse principles of objectivity and impartiality irrespective of person(s) involved.

So, CS/UI, can you please explain your actions there to the Forum at large? I only ask this because you (CS) have often purported to "Attack and Report" certain posters using the excuse they were 'anti-science' trolls.

So, CS/UI, I now ask: What could be more anti-science than bot-voting '1' to posts such as mine above; which were on-topic, scientifically/historically correct as to known facts, and respectfully polite and objective/impartial to all concerned.

Please explain.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2017
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am just as fine and dandy as I could be, thanks for asking.

@Uncle Ira.

I have been alerted to the fact you bot-voted me '1' for my above posts.
Glad you got the "alert" and glad to see you heeding the "alert" too.

May I enquire why you did that?
We been through this a thousand times Cher. It's a service I provide to humans and scientists who don't want to see all the clutter.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2017
@Uncle Ira.
@Uncle Ira.

I have been alerted to the fact you bot-voted me '1' for my above posts.

May I enquire why you did that?
We been through this a thousand times Cher. It's a service I provide to humans and scientists who don't want to see all the clutter. By "clutter" you mean correct, on-topic science/historical facts/reminders as in my two above posts? Not an explanation, UI, but an admission of failure on your part for bot-voting against correct relevant on-topic science/history info which some posters are obviously in need of if they are to be well informed instead of being out of date or just plain wrong on both science and history facts crucial to their education/insight in both areas.

So, UI, you have (for the, as you say, "thousandth time") admitted to the Forum that you are anti-science, bot-voting ignoramus wanting to drag everyone else down to your level of ignorance and malice by cluttering and skewing the discussion/ratings metrics. Sad, UI. :(
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2017
Now, @Captain Stumpy, it only remains for YOU to explain, to the Forum at large, your reasons for bot-voting my above posts '1': despite them being 100% on-topic and scientifically/historically correct re 'scalars' and Einstein's use of 'water surface' analogies in his Leiden Address.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2017
EDIT:

@Uncle Ira.
I have been alerted to the fact you bot-voted me '1' for my above posts.

May I enquire why you did that?
We been through this a thousand times Cher. It's a service I provide to humans and scientists who don't want to see all the clutter.
By "clutter" you mean correct, on-topic science/historical facts/reminders as in my two above posts? Not an explanation, UI, but an admission of failure on your part for bot-voting against correct relevant on-topic science/history info which some posters are obviously in need of if they are to be well informed instead of being out of date or just plain wrong on both science and history facts crucial to their education/insight in both areas.

So, UI, you have (for the, as you say, "thousandth time") admitted to the Forum that you are anti-science, bot-voting ignoramus wanting to drag everyone else down to your level of ignorance and malice by cluttering and skewing the discussion/ratings metrics. Not good.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2017
@Dingbone.
@RealityCheck Yes, http://www-groups...er.html, thxs. Actually Einstein expressed the ether and space-time controversy quite well with his water surface analogy:

Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things.....

--------from EINSTEIN's Leiden Address.
My pleasure, Dinbone. Always happy to test my memory and help others while doing so. Thanks for the opportunity re Einstein's analogies. :)

If I recall correctly, it was in that same Leiden Address that he concedes there IS an 'ether'; but since they (at that time) had no way of actually 'examining' or otherwise identifying its constituent makeup/dynamics per se, they just 'abstracted' everything from it via abstract 'space-time' maths/geom 'analysis construct'; to merely 'describe' higher dynamics rather than 'identify' the material/mechanical 'entities/dynamics' which said 'ether' must comprise/involve 'at root'.
Dingbone
Apr 29, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2017
Motl has an interesting blog on FDM. I don't always trust Motl; he's not rigorous. But at least he doesn't reject FDM because Witten coauthored a paper on it and he hates string physics! Better integrity than the trolls that infest physorg.

http://motls.blog...ght.html
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2017
Now, @Captain Stumpy, it only remains for YOU to explain
@idiot pseudoscience cult member POS troll sam
1- we've already been through this before -no point re-hashing it yet again for you to spam, troll and whine about

2- see Ira's posts

3- 6,691 and rising
Dingbone
Apr 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Dingbone
Apr 30, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eric96
5 / 5 (2) May 01, 2017
What keeps galaxies together and why do all the stars in the galaxy have near identical orbital velocity? Phycist proposed a dark matter halo that extends beyond the visible galaxy. One of Einstein's concept is space-time. Which is incredibly funny because he was almost dead on. I mean he coudn't have darted any closer if he had lived an eternity. What he should have said is, "Space in galaxies is uniform quantum; possibly the smallest with the longest wavelength . It makes gravity constant within the galaxy and holds the galaxy together. Outside of galaxies its density varies. Galaxies with significantly less dark matter, and thus probbably smaller in size, will observe stronger gravity. less dark matter = less space = less time = greater gravitational effect. If you understand that then you have a true understanding of dark matter, space, time and gravity."
Dingbone
May 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Benni
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2017
What keeps galaxies together and why do all the stars in the galaxy have near identical orbital velocity?


Dark matter halos were specific to SPIRAL GALAXIES in a concept invented by Fritz Zwicky. Spiral galaxies make up only 1/3 of the mass of the Universe, Elliptical galaxies make up the remaining 2/3 and function in perfect accord with the orbital features of Newtonian Gravity.
Hat1208
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
I wonder who Dingbone is a sock-puppet for? Any suggestions would be appreciated. His ripples at the water surface sounds like Omatur and his neutron repulsion.
cantdrive85
May 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eric96
3 / 5 (2) May 01, 2017
@Dingbone

If black holes could swallow dark matter, this would create voids that anything caught within could not escape not because of gravitational effects whatsoever, but because if there is no space-time then time and space are infinite; that is a true void is a perfect prison. So there's a few reason why black holes can't suck up dark matter. If they suckup space-time around them, then their mass is superimposed on infinite time-space which means their gravitational effect is 0 in every direction. No black holes just like any other matter bend space-time, but do not swallow it. Dark matter does not interact with ordinary matter. It really does nothing other than holding galaxies together, creating finite space-time, and thus being responsible for gravity.

Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
Dark matter does not interact with ordinary matter. It really does nothing other than holding galaxies together


You need to read up on what Zwicky wrote about the original concept of DM, that it was needed for the express purpose of preventing the spiral arms of SPIRAL GALAXIES from imploding into the central core of SPIRAL GALAXIES.

Dingbone
May 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
eric96
3.7 / 5 (3) May 01, 2017
@Benni

The velocities of stars have been measured in both spiral and elliptical galaxies. Within a given galaxy they are near identical regardless of their distance to the center. Newtonian physics cannot account for this. Pluto travels more slowly than Mercury; this same logic does not apply to 99.9% of galaxies regardless of their shape. All galaxies rotate and without dark matter, the galaxy would tear itself apart. Remember that gravity is short range and the distance between stars is great. So why are galaxies not circuses with stars going in random directions and some staying and some leaving, why, because of dark matter. It's the only feasible explanation.
RNP
4.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2017
@Benni
Dark matter halos were specific to SPIRAL GALAXIES in a concept invented by Fritz Zwicky. Spiral galaxies make up only 1/3 of the mass of the Universe, Elliptical galaxies make up the remaining 2/3 and function in perfect accord with the orbital features of Newtonian Gravity.


As has been explained to you before, this is simply NOT true. I can only assume that your unreasonable adherence to this misconception in the face of all evidence is the result of your irrational, and almost pshycopathic, detestation for Zwicky.

So, to again get the FACTS on the table: According to MODERN observations, as much DM is needed in elliptical galaxies as in spiral galaxies. Here is a serious, peer reviewed paper that shows this in 258 elliptical galaxies: https://arxiv.org...5805.pdf

A more general discussion can be found here: https://astrobite...r-halos/
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
All galaxies rotate and without dark matter, the galaxy would tear itself apart


........you need to do a really serious study of Rotation Curves of Spiral Galaxies vs. those of Ellipticals because you simply don't know what you're conjecturing about.
Dingbone
May 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RNP
4.6 / 5 (9) May 01, 2017
@Benni
You need to read up on what Zwicky wrote about the original concept of DM, that it was needed for the express purpose of preventing the spiral arms of SPIRAL GALAXIES from imploding into the central core of SPIRAL GALAXIES.


This is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE. I defy you to find ANY reference in which Zwicky (or ANYBODY ELSE for that matter) discusses the need for DM to stop things "imploding".

Zwicky, and everybody else but you it seems, understands that DM is needed to hold things together, not to stop them collapsing.

You clearly do not understand the history OR the physics of this subject AT ALL.
Benni
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
So, to again get the FACTS on the table: According to MODERN observation


........no mister freelance journalist, these are not FACTS, these are NARRATIVES contrived in such a manner as to justify the concept of Perpetual Motion without using the word PERPETUAL, you only being a freelance journalist simply are unable to distinguish the difference.
RNP
5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2017
@Benni
Why do you persist with the silly journalist thing (which I note has recently morphed into "freelance journalist").

Are you trying to insult me? If so, it fails for two reasons;

1) There is nothing wrong with being a journalist.
But more importantly,
2) Everybody, including you I suspect, knows that it is untrue, which means it reflects more on you than me.

I strongly suggest that you abandon your infantile approach to discourse and adopt a more adult tone.
eric96
5 / 5 (1) May 01, 2017
@Dingbone

Sure I can understand your point with the filament, but you will be disappointed to know that it is merely the result of uneven matter distribution and dark energy which affects dark matter and since dark matter holds galaxies together, galaxies drift further and further away from each other. Over much time the distribution of dark matter would eventually resemble a web.
Interestingly, if we live in a finite universe then the distribution of dark matter is an indication of how much time is left. So imagine the whole universe being a bunch of connected webs, the more these webs are stretched the smaller the filament becomes, until you end up with 1 filament, a filament that collapses under its own weight; crunch/bang.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) May 01, 2017
It's Zephyr.

Actually Zephir, but yeah, the newest sockpuppet in a long line of sockpuppets.
Dingbone
May 01, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
@Lenni gets dark matter backwards, and also gets Zwicky's evidence, which involves galaxies in galaxy clusters, backwards with Vera Rubin's, which involves rotation curves of individual galaxies.

I guess @Lenni is just backwards, which is not surprising since it can't even do simple algebra:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Derive the kinetic energy equation from this central equation of Special Relativity Theory, @Lenni. Prove you know any math at all beyond counting to four.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 01, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
Now, @Captain Stumpy, it only remains for YOU to explain, to the Forum at large, your reasons for bot-voting my above posts '1': despite them being 100% on-topic and scientifically/historically correct re 'scalars' and Einstein's use of 'water surface' analogies in his Leiden Address.
@idiot pseudoscience cult member POS troll sam
1- we've already been through this before -no point re-hashing it yet again for you to spam, troll and whine about

2- see Ira's posts

3- 6,691 and rising
The Forum is eagerly awaiting your explanation as per above request of you, CS. NO evasions and sidetracking to your own off-topic/off-issue personal rants and lies will substitute. Please show some honesty and sanity for once, CS. Thanks in advance, on behalf of myself and of the honest member of this forum (ie, those not members of the usual bot-voting ignoramus anti-science troll-and-insults gang).

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
@Dingbone.
@RealityCheck: Einstein was just confused, how is it possible, that despite the properties of vacuum correspond the water surface so well, the vacuum still doesn't exhibit reference frame for motion - with compare to water. Because he was pretty sure about it:
But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it
...This controversy (which bothered Maxwell already who proposed fluid "with no friction" i.e. superfluid for its solution) can be explained easily in this way.
Understood. I noted that 'confusion' also, long ago. I also arrived at the 'super' fluid (superfluidic/suprconductive) properties of energy-space in both scalar potential and vector dynamics 'states/effects' long ago....via my own novel reality-based ToE 'theorizing process' starting from 'scratch' reality-based postulates/axioms. Cheers.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2017
@Lenni gets dark matter backwards, and also gets Zwicky's evidence, which involves galaxies in galaxy clusters, backwards with Vera Rubin's, which involves rotation curves of individual galaxies.

I guess @Lenni is just backwards, which is not surprising since it can't even do simple algebra:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Derive the kinetic energy equation from this central equation of Special Relativity Theory, @Lenni. Prove you know any math at all beyond counting to four.


Bennie-Skippy and me been through this one before. He actually tried to dazzle me with something he got off of Ask-Yahoo-Skippy. He understood it so good that when I asked him:

"""""Does all eight paragraphs you just posted mean the same thing as this?,,,,,

KE = (sq root (p^2c^ + m^2c^4)) - mc^2

,,,, because if it does, you are taking up to much space-time.""""""

He told me that I should go back to towboat school before I hurt myself.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) May 01, 2017
@Da Schneib, Dingbone. RNP, all. :)
Motl has an interesting blog on FDM. I don't always trust Motl; he's not rigorous. But at least he doesn't reject FDM because Witten coauthored a paper on it and he hates string physics!

http://motls.blog...ght.html
I again remind of recent mainstream studies showing motional parameters of our MW stars correlate to (tracks closely) the motions and effects of the (now-more) visible content/distributions.

That means 'exotic' type DM can NOT be present in our galaxy; ELSE GR equations/dynamics would be WAY MORE EXTREME than already observed IF 4 TIMES EXTRA mass associated with visible mass.

So whatever Motl or Witten et al still 'fantasize/write' about 'exotic' DM 'candidates', they are just wasting their time!

It's all Ordinary Stuff; and all these 'inside-galaxy/outside-galaxy' exotic-DM 'calculations' and 'interpretations' are just so much unreal 'mathturbation exercises' now.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
Awww, you made it too easy, @Ira. Luckily however you didn't give the derivation... which is what I was asking for!

Guess you should go back to towboat school... and teach them all relativity!

The real derivation is quite simple, if you know any math and any SRT.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2017
Awww, you made it too easy, @Ira. Luckily however you didn't give the derivation... which is what I was asking for!
Well I will wait for Bennie-Skippy to give you that part of it.

Maybe Bennie-Skippy will try to "reverse engineer" what I wrote,,,, hooyeeei that would be real big fun, eh?

Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2017
Dark matter does not interact with ordinary matter. It really does nothing other than holding galaxies together


You need to read up on what Zwicky wrote about the original concept of DM, that it was needed for the express purpose of preventing the spiral arms of SPIRAL GALAXIES from imploding into the central core of SPIRAL GALAXIES.


and that was.... How long ago?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 01, 2017
It's all Ordinary Stuff; and all these 'inside-galaxy/outside-galaxy' exotic-DM 'calculations' and 'interpretations' are just so much unreal 'mathturbation exercises' now.

I see you are are losing some of your "/" entries and starting to type with a lisp...
Da Schneib
4.7 / 5 (10) May 01, 2017
and that was.... How long ago?
@Whyde, it was never. Vera Rubin proposed that the same "missing mass" that Zwicky proposed held galaxies together in clusters, held spiral arms together in galaxies. And she never claimed that galaxies would implode without it.

Not only can't @RC keep track of who discovered what, it can't even keep track of what DM is actually supposed to do. Just like @Lenni (unless I misunderstood who's being quoted).

This individual wants people to actually believe it knows enough astrophysics to deny both black holes and dark matter, when it can't even keep track of what dark matter is supposed to do, nor who discovered what?

Really?

Really?
PTTG
4.2 / 5 (5) May 01, 2017
Submitted for approval: proof that not every website needs a comment section.
gunnqu
1 / 5 (3) May 02, 2017
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) worked since 10 September 2008 till 14 February 2013 -- RUNI. RUNII works from June 2015 for today. Huge resources have been spent, but did not receive any fundamentally new results - no superpartners, no extra dimensions, or gravitons, or black holes. no dark matter or dark energy, etc. etc .. As for the Higgs, the firstly, there is no argument in favor of the fact that the particle 124.5 - 126 GeV has some relation to the Higgs mechanism. Secondly, the Higgs field permeates the vacuum of space, which means that the mass of the Higgs vacuum and stability are closely linked. For a particle of mass near 126 GeV - enough to destroy the cosmos. The Standard Model of particle physics has not given an answer to the question of why the universe did not collapse after the Big Bang. Third, all the known elementary bosons are gauge - it is photons, W- and Z-bosons and gluons. It is likely that the 125-126 particle is of some hadron multiplet.
Dingbone
May 02, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CarnSoaks
5 / 5 (5) May 02, 2017
Wait everyone! I watched a Youtube blog from some "Southern" gentleman (see Bibliophile) and he proved that all Gravity is actually just powerful magnetism and that the theory of General Relativity was a conspiracy of the Americo-Isreali Military elite (even though Palestine was not broken up for another 30 years).
Plasma physics dominates the universe and all "big science" is a way to subvert all thinking and subdue the first world masses into complacency.
We need to stop fighting about this inconsequential material and get back to real theory, go Flat Earth! Brevity is the soul of wit 407
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 02, 2017
@CarnSoaks
ROTFLMFAO - thanks for that laugh

.

@idiot pseudoscience cult member POS troll sam
@Captain Stumpy.
1- 6,697 and rising

2- The Forum is eagerly awaiting your explanation as per above request of you to provide the 4 fatal flaws, rc. NO evasions and sidetracking to your own off-topic/off-issue personal rants and lies will substitute. Please show some honesty and sanity for once, you POS troll. Thanks in advance, on behalf of myself and of the honest member of this forum.
CarnSoaks
not rated yet May 02, 2017
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) worked... ..hadron multiplet.

You subverted the work of ALICE & LHCb and discredited the 3 channels seen for the Higgs.
I am surprised Atlas and CMS couldn't tell the difference. A boson degenerating 2Photons vs the chalk dust of just another multiplet of Quarks, seen daily at ALICE (or LHCb)

Photons, WZ & Gluons are gauge bosons, but not Higgs, its SCALAR, ie no strain gauge in its action and why we couldn't calculate its mass to start with...

Its the first one seen, the first 0 spin particle. This leaves us with only the 3/2 particles and the 2/1 to complete the set.
Sure, it may be ages between productions , but what do you expect, a discovery every month. Isn't a new iPhone each year enoh
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2017
@Da Schneib.
and that was.... How long ago?
@Whyde, it was never. Vera Rubin proposed that the same "missing mass" that Zwicky proposed held galaxies together in clusters, held spiral arms together in galaxies. And she never claimed that galaxies would implode without it.

Not only can't @RC keep track of who discovered what, it can't even keep track of what DM is actually supposed to do. Just like @Lenni (unless I misunderstood who's being quoted).
Yes, DS, you (not for the first time) misunderstood who was being quoted, and just jumped in to attack an innocent/correct member here (me). How about retracting that above comment to @Whyde, wherein you mis-associate me with someone else's comments? Thanks in advance, DS. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 02, 2017
@Captain Stumpy.
1- 6,697 and rising

2- The Forum is eagerly awaiting your explanation as per above request of you to provide the 4 fatal flaws, rc. NO evasions and sidetracking to your own off-topic/off-issue personal rants and lies will substitute. Please show some honesty and sanity for once, you POS troll. Thanks in advance, on behalf of myself and of the honest member of this forum.
While you've been laughing: the forum notes your juvenile attempts to evade your responsibility to answer for your bot-voting actions against 100% correct posts as already highlighted for your response as to your reasons for doing that, against all good science and humanity discourse ethics, CS.

PS: You're chopping/misusing my comment is lame, CS. As for Bicep2 flaws, you missed it all, due to your laughing, CS; instead of paying attention, and compounded by your substituting your very own 'Stump Method' [ie, "TL;DR" plus insults] for the objective science method. Get honest, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
@idiot pseudoscience cult member POS troll sam
so... you're going to just keep evading?

6,699 and steadily rising without an end in sight

While you've been laughing: the forum notes your juvenile attempts to evade your responsibility to answer for your 4 fatal flaws, 4 other flaws and your reality-cavalry epic failure WRT climate change as already requested repeatedly by multiple users, but as you are against all good science and humanity discourse ethics, rc, i can understand why you are avoiding your responsibility and refuse to validate your claims

PS: The Forum is eagerly awaiting your explanation as per above request of you to provide the 4 fatal flaws, rc. NO evasions and sidetracking to your own off-topic/off-issue personal rants and lies will substitute. Please show some honesty and sanity for once, you POS troll. Thanks in advance, on behalf of myself and of the honest member of this forum

PPS: no, i didn't miss it
you never posted it and you're a liar
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
@RC, you're lying again. You have confounded Rubin with Zwicky, and you have misrepresented Rubin and Zwicky because you do not understand what either of them said. You have demonstrated your incompetence yet again. Rubin didn't say galaxies would implode without dark matter; she said they would explode. At least try to understand that which you oppose; if you cannot then you are ignorant or insane.

Thread where @RC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @RC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @RC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2017
@Captain Stumpy, @Da Schneib.

You two are delusional and dishonest to the max, now, guys. The forum has enough on you two to know you are troll-shiting all over the PO floor. Have you no sense of self-preservation at all? Stop digging in your delusional, lying holes, you juvenile sillies! Use your time/energy to actually catch up with the mainstream news that is confirming me correct all along and you just trolling ignoramuses pretending to care about science while bot-voting, lying and troll-shiting against the person who is correct while you incorrect and just malignant internet 'players'. Get honest. Get updated on the science. Leave your lame lying juvenile tactics out, you sillies! Learn instead of insulting like morons with nothing better to do than troll-shite all over the internet/PO floor! Is this what your parents 'raised' you to be, internet lying, troll-shiting, insults merchants? They would be ashamed if they knew! Stop your 'nether' noises, silly arses!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
@Captain Stumpy, @Da Schneib.

You two are delusional and dishonest to the max, now, guys. The forum has enough on you two to know you are troll-shiting all over the PO floor. Have you no sense of self-preservation at all? Stop digging in your delusional, lying holes, you juvenile sillies! Use your time/energy to actually catch up with the mainstream news that is confirming me correct all along and you just trolling ignoramuses pretending to care about science while bot-voting, lying and troll-shiting against the person who is correct while you incorrect and just malignant internet 'players'. Get honest. Get updated on the science. Leave your lame lying juvenile tactics out, you sillies! Learn instead of insulting like morons with nothing better to do than troll-shite all over the internet/PO floor! Is this what your parents 'raised' you to be, internet lying, troll-shiting, insults merchants? They would be ashamed if they knew!


The Ira-bot-vote is "1" for that one Cher.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Because you use the bad language on the physorg in case you were going to ask why.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2017
@Uncle Ira.


The Ira-bot-vote is "1" for that one Cher.

P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Because you use the bad language on the physorg in case you were going to ask why.
Your half-wit trolling bot-votes count for nothing, Ira. The forum notes you '5' Stumpy and DS for much much worse language, Ira. So your bot-voting ignoramus hypocrisy delusion continues apace, Ira. Too bad. Now go clean up your Uncle-Ira-troll-shite off the PO floor, you self-made internet halfwit.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2017
Your half-wit trolling bot-votes count for nothing, Ira.
Au contraire mon Cher couyon Skippy.

If you don't believe me just ask any of those peoples who don't have to see your foolishment because of the service I provide for the humans and scientists. If you can faster than my bot-vote machine takes you off the board that is, eh?.

How you like me now Podna?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) May 03, 2017
@Uncle Ira, Forum.
Your half-wit trolling bot-votes count for nothing, Ira. The forum notes you '5' Stumpy and DS for much much worse language, Ira. So your bot-voting ignoramus hypocrisy delusion continues apace, Ira. Too bad. Now go clean up your Uncle-Ira-troll-shite off the PO floor, you self-made internet halfwit.
Au contraire mon Cher couyon Skippy.
If you don't believe me just ask any of those peoples who don't have to see your foolishment because of the service I provide for the humans and scientists. If you can faster than my bot-vote machine takes you off the board that is, eh?.

How you like me now Podna?
See how easy it is to get Uncle Ira bot-voting nitwit to (yet again) admit he is on a SCIENCE site to sabotage discussion/skew ratings metrics for his own delusional half-witted agenda aimed at depriving innocent readers of free choice: getting informed on science rather than being manipulated without their consent by a bot-voting UI net-nincompoop!

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.