New evidence for dark matter makes it even more exotic

October 26, 2017
Dark matter map of KiDS survey region (region G12). Credit: KiDS survey

Galaxy clusters are the largest known structures in the Universe, containing thousands of galaxies and hot gas. But more importantly, they contain the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for 27 percent of all matter and energy. Current models of dark matter predict that galaxy clusters have very dense cores, and those cores contain a very massive galaxy that never moves from the cluster's center.

But after studying ten galaxy clusters, David Harvey at EPFL's Laboratory of Astrophysics and his colleagues in France and the UK have discovered that the density is much smaller than predicted, and that the galaxy at the center actually moves.

Every contains a galaxy that is brighter than the others, aptly named "brightest cluster galaxy" or BCG. Recent evidence from simulations of exotic, non-standard dark matter shows that BCGs actually wobble long after the galaxy cluster has relaxed. This is residual wobbling caused by massive merging of galaxy clusters.

The researchers compared their observations to the predictions from the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydro-dynamical simulations finding that the two did not match. According to the Standard Model of dark matter (called "cold dark matter"), this wobbling doesn't exist because the enormous density of dark matter keeps it tightly bound at the center of the galaxy cluster. Therefore, this mismatch suggests the existence of yet-unknown physics that have not been accounted for.

The galaxy clusters that the astronomers studied also act as strong gravitational lenses: they are so massive that they warp spacetime enough to distort light passing through them, like a lens. As a result, they can be used to make a map of dark matter, working out where the center is and then observing how the BCG wobbles around this center.

"We found that that the BCGs 'slosh' around at the bottom of the halos," says David Harvey. "This indicates that, instead of a dense region in the center of the galaxy cluster, there is a much shallower central density—a striking signal of exotic forms of right at the heart of galaxy clusters." The wobbling also shows that BCGs cannot coincide exactly with the 's halo, meaning that certain models of galaxy clusters have to be adjusted.

The scientists will extend their research with larger surveys of galaxy clusters such as Euclid. They hope that this will allow them to confirm their findings, but to also determine if BCG wobbling originates in new fundamental physics or a novel astrophysical phenomenon.

Explore further: Mapping dark matter

More information: David Harvey et al. A detection of wobbling brightest cluster galaxies within massive galaxy clusters, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (2017). DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stx2084

Related Stories

Mapping dark matter

July 24, 2017

About eighty-five percent of the matter in the universe is in the form of dark matter, whose nature remains a mystery. The rest of the matter in the universe is of the kind found in atoms. Astronomers studying the evolution ...

Image: Hubble catches galaxies swarmed by star clusters

October 2, 2017

In the center of a rich cluster of galaxies located in the direction of the constellation of Coma Berenices, lies a galaxy surrounded by a swarm of star clusters. NGC 4874 is a giant elliptical galaxy, about ten times larger ...

Colliding galaxy clusters

December 5, 2016

Galaxy clusters contain a few to thousands of galaxies and are the largest bound structures in the universe. Most galaxies are members of a cluster. Our Milky Way, for example, is a member of the "Local Group," a set of about ...

Centuries-old math formula helps map galaxy clusters

June 9, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Across the universe, galaxies band together in clusters so huge it can take 10 million years for light to travel from one end of a galaxy cluster to the other. Probing these metropolises is no easy task. ...

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 ...

88 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bart_A
2.6 / 5 (20) Oct 26, 2017
As if dark matter weren't already exotic. Now some people want to label as super exotic. When we haven't even observed any of it.

Without more real information, I would classify DM as the world of fantasy and fairy tales.

Blakut
3.8 / 5 (18) Oct 26, 2017
Good that you're not an astrophysicist then.
someone11235813
5 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2017
Galaxy clusters are the largest known structures in the Universe


Is this correct? I was under the impression that the galaxy clusters are clustered into super clusters which then form huge strings or sheets of superclusters.
mackita
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2017
Evidence against theory based on simulation of theory?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2017
No, evidence from observation contradicting the predictions of hypotheses about the CDM theory. Evidence comes from observation and experiment, and from logical reasoning, not from theories and hypotheses.

We'll want to keep an eye on this. This is very interesting. I hope @shavy or @IMP-9 or someone like that shows up and looks this over; their comments should be interesting.
bschott
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 26, 2017
evidence from observation contradicting the predictions of hypotheses about the CDM theory.

Ahhhh, the epitaph of every DM theorist.
Evidence comes from observation and experiment, and from logical reasoning, not from theories and hypotheses.

Thank you, now every time you refer to math as evidence or a theory as settled science I can link this thread where you said the most correct thing I think you have ever posted here.
Good that you're not an astrophysicist then.

Indeed, constantly explaining why observations repeatedly discount existing theories has to be exhausting.
Evidence against theory based on simulation of theory?

The most realistic post here, well done.
Chris_Reeve
2.1 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2017
The article uses the term "exotic", but as others above already point out, dark matter ALREADY IS exotic.

The more appropriate term would be "unexpected". What the data is plainly telling them is that even their "exotic" candidates cannot be made to work. A frank admission that their approach is not working would seem appropriate at this point, after so many failures.
fthompson495
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2017
There is evidence of the strongly interacting superfluid dark matter every time a double slit experiment is performed, as it is the dark matter that waves.
cantdrive85
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2017
The researchers compared their observations to the predictions from the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydro-dynamical simulations finding that the two did not match. According to the Standard Model of dark matter (called "cold dark matter"), this wobbling doesn't exist because the enormous density of dark matter keeps it tightly bound at the center of the galaxy cluster. Therefore, this mismatch suggests the existence of yet-unknown physics that have not been accounted for.

The biggest problem they are having is they are plasma ignoramuses using models based upon gravity only gas dynamics to explain electrodynamic plasmas. But hey, I'm sure some clever guy will come along and propose some ad hoc band aid explanation to patch up this failure and falsification of their faerie dust conjectures.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2017
Over and over again, we've found observations that have very strongly matched predictions of GR, not least of which are the recent "gravitational" waves. So when we're faced with observations that don't match our predictions, we must look at our initial assumptions. Which in this case are two: Should we assume GR works? Should we assume that we have observed all the mass and energy in a system? We have overwhelming reams of evidence that GR works, and it's not entirely unreasonable to assume there are still kinds of mass and energy we don't yet know or understand. So it is more than reasonable to suppose our latter assumption, that we know all of the kinds of mass and energy, is the improper assumption.

So if we drop the assumption that we don't know all of the mass and energy, how can we investigate the unknown? Data such as these help tell us what the unknown stuff likely isn't. When we know all the stuff it isn't, we may know what it is.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2017
Evidence comes from observation and experiment, and from logical reasoning, not from theories and hypotheses.

Is that how you discovered the magical magnetic monopole at the end of that "open field line" you were discussing not too long ago? That hack Kip Thorne has nothing on you, he had to share his pseudoscience prize whereas you will be awarded a solo prize given the magnitude of your discovery.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2017
To draw a mediocre parallel, we have known for ages that air is a thing. We feel variations in air pressure, see mirages due to variations in air density, note relationships between the heat in the air and its pressure, and so on. Not until relatively recently in human history were we able to find that air is made of molecules. Then after that, we found molecules are made of atoms. Then atoms are made of electrons and nuclei, that nuclei are made of hadrons, that hadrons are made of quarks and gluons. (though we have reason to believe the chain may likely stop there, which is beyond the scope of this comment).

So did we only know air existed when we knew the subatomic structure of air? Did we have to detect the individual air particles before we knew of air's existence? Or was its bulk behaviour sufficient to know it existed? So even if we don't know the particulate structure of unknown mass... its bulk behaviour is quite telling about its existence.
PTTG
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2017
I honestly don't know what's more frightening: the idea that there's a massive horde of conspiracy theorists out there, or that there's a massively successful propaganda campaign against the idea of science itself.
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2017
Well, until a DM particle is found - folks can continue to assume it is there and conduct "science" based on the assumption. Those of us grounded in reality will require actual proof of existence as opposed to another "I saw bigfoot" headline. Ditto for any claims made regarding atomic structure...stabilize one of the as yet unstable SA components claimed to exist and you have proof it does, otherwise...you have a nice story. In "gravitational waves" you have the claim of an instrument composed of matter in the EM spectrum detecting phenomenon that are not visible in said spectrum. In short....yet another math fairy tale until we can actually observe even one of the bodies supposedly generating the waves.
Why do I say this stuff? If I were to trot out here and make comment after comment about all of the things God does and how I have proven it was him based on math and inference, how much credibility would my claims have?
Two way street kids.
shavera
4.7 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2017
Ultimately your complaint is that you just don't agree with the foundational idea of physics, that if a model predicts outcomes to experiments, requiring fewer unfounded assumptions than other models, that model best describes reality. You seem to want physics to have precisely 0 unfounded assumptions. Which it can't, and likely won't.

If you throw a ball, you can calculate where that ball will land. But first you must assume (in the Newtonian approximation) that there is some external force acting on the ball, that motion falls under rules of inertia and momentum conservation, and so on. Modern physics is really just an extension of those kinds of assumptions, yet simplifying them (we no longer need to assume a 'force' of gravity exists, and momentum conservation rules come from a yet simpler rule (space/time translation symmetries)).
bschott
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2017
Ultimately your complaint is that you just don't agree with the foundational idea of physics,

No, that is a completely incorrect evaluation. I do not agree with assuming something functions in a way that is not coherent with what we observe and the methods we employ to observe them. We only use light and EM for all emission and transmission, measurement and construction. The only "particle" proven to mediate anything is a photon. The only force we have somewhat of an experimental understanding as to it's nature is magnetism.
If you throw a ball, you can calculate where that ball will land.

Only if you know where you are....
But first you must assume (in the Newtonian approximation) that there is some external force acting on the ball,

Not if you are in an unknown environment, then you actually have to throw the ball and observe what happens to know if there are said forces present. I do agree that modern physics is an extension of assumptions.
rossim22
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2017
The number of ad hoc hypotheses associated with dark matter is bewildering.

There isn't "unknown physics" just waiting to be realized. The SIMPLE answer is that the standard model is wrong. It's that easy. Stop assuming that there MUST be dark matter because it fits your models. Models don't mean a damn thing when the environment those models are predicated upon doesn't exist.

Scrap the whole paradigm already, it's going to happen eventually.
Tuxford
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 26, 2017
There isn't "unknown physics" just waiting to be realized. ...

Scrap the whole paradigm already, it's going to happen eventually.

The real problem is that physics does not have the sufficient tool set to explain nature, and likely never will. Since physics claims that authority regardless, any other tools brought to bear are ignored and ridiculed.

Yes, the double slit experiment yields a broad hint. But physics objects with constant repetition 'It is both an apple and an orange!' Sounds like Trumps world. Just as valid.

What universally present medium produces waves influencing matter and yet by definition cannot be detected? Overcome this objection with logical insight, and you are on your way.
shavera
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2017
The SIMPLE answer is that the standard model is wrong.

Obviously. Physicists know it's wrong. We just don't know what the next, more accurate, model is.
he environment those models are predicated upon doesn't exist.

The standard model doesn't really inform anything about dark matter one way or the other right now. GR is why we think there's dark matter. GR is remarkably accurate across a lot of experiments. So how do you explain GR being so right so often, but not in this case? As I say above, it seems easier to suppose that there's a kind of mass or matter we don't yet know about.

And that, in turn, is where we circle back to your complaint about the standard model of particle physics. If there's a kind of mass or energy out there we don't know about, and we know the standard model is incomplete... it seems pretty reasonable to guess that our next correction of the SM will allow us to know more about that unknown mass/energy.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2017
we've found observations that have very strongly matched predictions of GR


Shavo, you complete & total GR Illiterate. There's not one word in Einstein's GR about your silly DM Cosmic Fairy Dust. Where? What section?

Schneibo begs you to bring your wordsmithing skills here because that's what he imagines this site needs, more of your freelance journalism skills.

Look, I know guys like you have a BMI problem, you turn sideways while looking in a mirror, and VOILA, missing mass located, but you won't let the rest of us see it. Pics please.

shavera
4.7 / 5 (13) Oct 26, 2017
Oh benni, you complete and total illiterate. I mean if you were literate you might be able to read. Maybe if you could read you wouldn't have to make up nonsense and claim I said it. Maybe if you could read, you could read any physics textbook once in your life.

Please quote exactly where I claim GR talks about Dark matter. Where? What section?

Because if I'm not mistaken, I say no such thing. I say merely that GR seems to be right in a lot of ways, and maybe physicists aren't so stupid as to imagine that we know all of the kinds of mass and energy in our universe. Especially when we know our standard model of particle physics is already incomplete. So maybe it isn't unreasonable to assume there's stuff out there we don't know about.

antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2017
The standard model doesn't really inform anything about dark matter one way or the other right now. GR is why we think there's dark matter.

One should also look at how the alternative models are doing.
E.g. with the recent observation of the neutron star merger a lot of the MOND theories died (not all, but a whole slew). These MOND theories predicted that gravity would couple differently to spacetime than EM over long distances. But since the speed of the light and the gravitational wave were the same (they both arrived here at the same time) that idea fizzled out.
The standard model is still the best we have.
shavera
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2017
I wasn't particularly clear above, I guess, when I hear "standard model" it's always 'of particle physics' to me.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2017
@shavy, thanks for weighing in. I didn't see where I could add anything or anything wrong with what you said. @IMP-9 might give us some additinal astrophysics insight but I doubt there is any reasonable arguing with @Lennitheluser.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 26, 2017
shavo,

Please quote exactly where I claim GR talks about Dark matter


we've found observations that have very strongly matched predictions of GR, not least of which are the recent "gravitational" waves


.......right there, you lumped your Cosmic Fairy Dust right alongside gravitational waves as a strongly matched prediction of GR. The only place missing DM mass can be observed is when you're looking sideways in a mirror at your BMI, the same problem almost all freelance journalists like you have.

So the challenge to you again: Produce the section of GR for which predictions of DM are found.

Why not admit the obvious, that you simply did not know what you were talking about & you were hoping I wouldn't be here to catch it.

Mimath224
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2017
Well, I am not going to ask any questions here today because I figure there are enough of them flying around already. But I have to say that scientist do come out with some everyday or common expressions that just makes me smile. '...'slosh' around at the bottom...' That certainly conjures up some wonderful impressions in my mind. Where is our artist expert WG, would like to hear about his thoughts on that. Since this might be happening in a massive but confined space I wonder if Glug quanta and Glug Quanta Frequency (fluid dynamics) are relevant, if the contents ever 'pour' (ejected) out that is...just joking.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2017
Well, I am not going to ask any questions here today because I figure there are enough of them flying around already. But I have to say that scientist do come out with some everyday or common expressions that just makes me smile. '...'slosh' around at the bottom...' That certainly conjures up some wonderful impressions in my mind. Where is our artist expert WG, would like to hear about his thoughts on that.

I just make artsy stuff... I'm no expert...:-)
I have no idea what they meant by that metaphor...
That the densest portion of a cluster can be just bout anywhere within it? Or that lensing is done the same by a cluster regardless of galaxy positioning within it?
However, I AM developing an opinion on the nature of DM...:-)
rossim22
2.1 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2017
Obviously. Physicists know it's wrong. We just don't know what the next, more accurate, model is.
... GR is why we think there's dark matter. GR is remarkably accurate across a lot of experiments. So how do you explain GR being so right so often, but not in this case?


Dark matter isn't just another ad hoc detail, it's a paramount foundational element of today's GR.

Here's a mediocre parallel.

Back when humans "knew" the earth was in the center of the universe, it too explained the observations extremely well. There were beautiful models produced and predictions could even be made upon these ideas.

Eventually, conflicting observations, such as eclipse tables, began to appear. Geocentric models could still explain these to a tee, however, the originally simplistic model (geocentrism) had to become exponentially more complex to do so.

Copernicus' idea made the same predictions yet required fewer assumptions.

GR used to be simple.. in the 40s.
rossim22
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2017
Humans became able to observe a galaxy in unprecedented detail, even tracking its rotation. We learned that, according to GR, the galaxy was rotating too fast to contain its mass... uh oh!

But that's not all folks. That same galaxy's rotational velocity was nearly the same whether you were circling the core or surfing the outer fringes, nothing like GR would predict (insert spinning ballerina or whirlpool metaphor here).

So GR already explained everything 'beautifully', then this wrench got thrown into the mix. To keep GR afloat all we have to do is.. invent an entire new realm of physics to help explain a rotation issue. Wow.
But I'm coined a conspiracy theorist because I think there may be a simpler explanation.

Confirmational bias (or researcher's bias) can Ben awfully misleading.
Dark energy shares a very similar story.
Ojorf
3.7 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2017
Gee Benni, did you really not get what shavera meant? You really need to read up on the basics. Just three things.

Observations:
1. Spacetime is as flat as we can measure.
2. Galaxy rotation curves.
3. Gravitational lensing.

Take GR as an accurate enough description of reality.
What does GR tell us about the content of the universe given 1 above?
What does GR imply about 2 and 3?

Do you see what I'm getting at? There are more examples.

Can you answer? Simply and straightforward? Without quoting stuff?

What does Einsteins GR say about the universe, given these observations?
Gigel
5 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2017
I wonder when you people will be getting tired of fighting trolls and put them on the ignore list. It will do you good.
Mimath224
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2017
@Benni
we've found observations that have very strongly matched predictions of GR


Shavo, you complete & total GR Illiterate...
Look, I know guys like you have a BMI problem, you turn sideways while looking in a mirror, and VOILA, missing mass located, but you won't let the rest of us see it. Pics please.


And there you go again '...guys like you...'?! Has shavera disclosed gender too? Or maybe you live in a one gender universe where the mysterious DM might be the missing...you know...the other gender.
Even a layman like me has read nothing where GR predicts DM so there is no way shavera would make such a claim. Great Caesar's Ghost, Einstein had enough problems with the Cosm. Constant let alone GR predicting DM or DE...I'm posting on the lighter side, of course.
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2017
1.Spacetime is as flat as we can measure


Proving you don't even comprehend the concept of "spacetime", here:

Gravity is strongest where spacetime is most curved in the presence of massive bodies of matter, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four dimensional continuum.

2. Galaxy rotation curves.


This applies only to SPIRAL GALAXIES which make up only 1/3 the mass of the Universe, read what your asstrophysicist icon Fritz Zwicky actually wrote.

3.Gravitational lensing


You don't even know what section of GR to find Einstein's calculations for this & the fact that he calculated the process long before Zwicky conjured up his DM Halo theories specific to Spiral Galaxies.

This is fun, just love the endless psycho-babble pseudo-science you overage Trekkies won't give up, it's the only reason I post Comments
nikola_milovic_378
Oct 27, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ojorf
4 / 5 (9) Oct 27, 2017
Nice Benni, so you couldn't even answer one of them.
No surprises there, although I was hoping.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2017

Nice Benni, so you couldn't even answer one of them.
No surprises there, although I was hoping.

Why would he even bother?
Observations:
1. Spacetime is as flat as we can measure.

We don't "observe" Flat "spacetime". We observe space as a 3D volume...it is mathematically derived as "flat" ONLY in the context of GR and "spacetime".
2. Galaxy rotation curves.

Rossims second post...perfect
3. Gravitational lensing.

Proof that it is gravity still forthcoming....any day now....right?

Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2017
We don't "observe" Flat "spacetime". We observe space as a 3D volume...it is mathematically derived as "flat" ONLY in the context of GR and "spacetime".

I'm talking about the universe as a whole, 3D space can be flat, positively curved (open) or negatively curved (closed, saddle shaped) according to GR.
Since, according to GR, Matter (and energy) curves space the shape of the universe depends on the amount of matter (etc.) it contains.
According to experiment/observation (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2017
Proving you don't even comprehend the concept of "spacetime", here:

Gravity is strongest where spacetime is most curved in the presence of massive bodies of matter, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four dimensional continuum.


You totally missed the point, as usual, see above.
We are not talking about any formulas, just the basic principles.
Do you get that the shape of the universe depends on what it contains?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2017
Do you get that the shape of the universe depends on what it contains?


.....and herein is what Einstein had to say about that in GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole- the structure of Space
Albert Einstein – General Relativity 1916

"If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it."

......and this ain't exactly flat.
Ojorf
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 27, 2017
Oh boy, missing the point, quoting thins out of context.

Is this wrong? https://map.gsfc....ape.html

Cause Einstein would sure agree with it.

Benni, please read this and tell me what exactly you disagree with:

https://en.wikipe...universe

What part exactly is wrong?

There are references and everything, which ones don't you like?
Ojorf
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2017
``Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity - and I'm not sure about the former.'' - Albert Einstein

See Einstein thought the universe was probably flat.
Since then experiment proved him right, on both counts.
bschott
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2017
I'm talking about the universe as a whole, 3D space can be flat, positively curved (open) or negatively curved (closed, saddle shaped) according to GR.
Since, according to GR, Matter (and energy) curves space the shape of the universe depends on the amount of matter (etc.) it contains.

That is exactly what I just said here....
it is mathematically derived as "flat" ONLY in the context of GR and "spacetime".

But in reality it is a 3D volume....if you doubt this, go fly around space until you find it's flat surface.
All the math in the world won't help you find one when traversing a volume, unless you encounter an object...
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2017
go fly around space until you find it's flat surface. All the math in the world won't help you find one when traversing a volume, unless you encounter an object...


@bshott.......only thing flat around here are a few brainwaves from the usual Perpetual Motion crowd living in the Commentary section on this site. They're also the same ones who think we can see leftover big bang energy because somehow the Milky Way has magically found a way to stay in front of electro-magnetic waves traveling at 186,000 miles/s.
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 27, 2017
go fly around space until you find it's flat surface. All the math in the world won't help you find one when traversing a volume, unless you encounter an object...


@bshott.......only thing flat around here are a few brainwaves from the usual Perpetual Motion crowd living in the Commentary section on this site. They're also the same ones who think we can see leftover big bang energy because somehow the Milky Way has magically found a way to stay in front of electro-magnetic waves traveling at 186,000 miles/s.

We see it all AROUND us. Ergo, we're not "out in front of"...
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2017
We don't "observe" Flat "spacetime". We observe space as a 3D volume...it is mathematically derived as "flat" ONLY in the context of GR and "spacetime".

I'm talking about the universe as a whole, 3D space can be flat, positively curved (open) or negatively curved (closed, saddle shaped) according to GR.
Since, according to GR, Matter (and energy) curves space the shape of the universe depends on the amount of matter (etc.) it contains.
According to experiment/observation (WMAP, BOOMERanG, and Planck for example) the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.

I always thought it was .04%...
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2017
@Lennitheluser and @bullschott posting the Einstein quote about human stupidity is the ultimate in irony. Thanks for adding to the ambience of physorg, #physicscranks.

It's especially amusing to be watching these #physicscranks melt down while listening to Friday Night in San Franciso, di Meola, de Lucia, and McLaughlin rock out incredibly on acoustic axes. Perhaps one of the greatest performances on acoustic guitar in the 20th century.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
It's especially amusing to be watching these #physicscranks melt down while listening to Friday Night in San Franciso, di Meola, de Lucia, and McLaughlin rock out incredibly on acoustic axes. Perhaps one of the greatest performances on acoustic guitar in the 20th century.


Last night I was sitting around our huge crackling fireplace with the kids while playing my Gibson Hummingbird guitar in strumming out & singing Rocky Mountain High, then we did The Mountain Song, then I did my finger picking style of Sunshine On My Shoulders. John Denver is our musical icon. My wife plays piano & flute, while the kids have become adept in some kind of musical instrument.
Benni
1 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2017
It's especially amusing to be watching these #physicscranks melt down while listening to Friday Night in San Franciso, di Meola,


Naw, we didn't "melt down", we maintained a safe distance from the fireplace, it was really way more fun making our own music than just listening to somebody else.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
Re: "Over and over again, we've found observations that have very strongly matched predictions of GR"

William Day, A New Physics, 2000, p.118

"Relativity is a strange and novel theory that has provided equations with extreme accuracy with a theory that logically cannot be true. The theory is at most a way to rationalize a mathematical description by an imagined condition that gives a workable formula, much the way Newton devised an equation by calling gravity a force acting at a distance."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
Re: "We have overwhelming reams of evidence that GR works"

"The ad hoc character of the Fitzgerald contraction hypothesis (which is in disfavor with the scientific community and therefore fair game for criticism) is freely condemned. Capek reports, 'Today this explanation is usually presented as a perfect specimen of an ad hoc hypothesis, artificially postulated in order to save the appearances.' But Einstein's solution is equally ad hoc and open to exactly the same criticism. It, too, is a hypothesis artificially postulated to meet the requirements of this particular situation, and while it is mathematically correct, as it must be, since it was deliberately designed to fit the mathematical results already available, this does not in any way assure us that the theory is conceptually correct."

- Kapek, Milic, The Philosophical Impact of Contemporary Physics, D. Van Nostrand Co., Princeton, N. J., 1961, p.146 (In Dewey B. Larson, New Light on Space & Time)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
Bankrupting Physics: How Today's Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility
Alexander Unzicker and Sheilla Jones (p10, 2013)

"Combing through the library, I found a well-known textbook on galactic dynamics where the authors state:

'It is worth remembering that all of the discussion so far has been based on the premise that Newtonian gravity and general relativity are correct on large scales. In fact, there is little or no direct evidence that conventional theories of gravity are correct on scales much larger than a light year or so. Newtonian gravity works extremely well on scales of 10^12 meters, the solar system (...) It is principally the elegance of general relativity and its success in solar system tests that lead us to the bold extrapolation to scales 10^19 - 10^24 meters ... [3]'"

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
(cont'd)

"... Wow! Fancy that. Two leading experts claim that the law of gravity has been well tested in our solar system only -- a tiny fraction of the universe that corresponds to a single snowflake in all of Greenland. Scientists seem drawn to the 'elegance' of the theory, which is not really a scientific criterion. I often confront physicists and astronomers with this quote. Usually they shrug and reply airily, 'That is indeed true, but why shouldn't the law of gravity be valid? So far, there is nothing better to replace it.'"

the quoted textbook:

[3] J. Binney and S. Tremaine, S. Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 635.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
"... the logical status of the Special Theory is similar to that of the variable mass hypothesis, in that it is also a well-established mathematical relation, upon which has been placed a conceptual interpretation that is totally unverified and, in reality, has no claim to special merit other than that it is the current favorite among the many possible explanations of the mathematical results ... Unfortunately, the Special Theory is not being presented to us today in its true aspect as the current choice among a number of possible explanations of the mathematical results; it is being presented as the correct explanation."

- Dewey B. Larson, New Light on Space & Time
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
"Relativity is now the strangest sub-field in all of physics. In the universities, it barely exists. As a living field, it does not exist at all. What I mean by that is there is no sub-department of Relativity at most universities. It is not taught as a sub-field that you can enter and hope to make a contribution to, like all other sub-fields in physics. Relativity is taught as dogma -- as a finished field. You learn it only to use in other fields. At the university and research level, Relativity is only a defensive field. Most of the work now done in the field is in keeping away pests."

- Miles Mathis, The Greatest Standing Errors In Physics And Mathematics
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
http://www.shapin...cer1.asp

A New Interpretation of the Hafele-Keating Experiment

Domina Eberle Spencer (University of Connecticut) and Uma Shama (Bridgewater State College)

"It is generally considered that one of the most crucial experiments in support of the special theory of relativity is the Hafele-Keating experiment. Four atomic clocks were flown around the world and then compared with the master clock in Washington, D.C. However, the original paper did not publish the raw data. Dr. Keating has been kind enough to permit us to analyze the raw data. We have found that an entirely different interpretation of the experimental data, which supports the universal time postulate on the velocity of light, is perfectly consistent with the experimental data obtained by Hafele and Keating. Thus, one of the essential experimental supports of the relativistic theory of time dilation is shown to be invalid."

(cont'd)
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
http://www.cartes...aper.htm

Hafele & Keating Tests; Did They Prove Anything?
A. G. Kelly PhD

"The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results. The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by H & K to give the impression that they confirm the theory. Only one clock (447) had a fairly steady performance over the whole test period; taking its results gives no difference for the Eastward and the Westward tests."
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2017
"A factor that has contributed heavily to this increasing skepticism as to the validity of the General Theory is that it seems to have arrived at a dead end. One of the criteria by which we are able to recognize a sound physical theory is the manner in which it fits in with existing knowledge in related fields and sheds new light on phenomena other than that for which it was originally constructed. The failure of Einstein's gravitational theory to accomplish anything of this nature or to show the normal amount of improvement of its own internal structure during the half century that has elapsed since its inception therefore weighs heavily against it. Freeman J. Dyson describes the situation in this manner: '... the view of the world (given by General Relativity) ... has remained since 1929 almost totally sterile.'"

- Dewey B. Larson, Beyond Newton
Mimath224
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2017
@Chris_Reeve What is with you quoting various passages from here and there. We could all do that from sources that praise GR. Why not do some ORIGINAL thinking and tell us how YOU refute GR. That would be far more interesting.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2017
@Chris_Reeve What is with you quoting various passages from here and there. We could all do that from sources that praise GR. Why not do some ORIGINAL thinking and tell us how YOU refute GR. That would be far more interesting.

MM.
Very similar to what i commented to him in another thread...
https://phys.org/...ons.html
You made a good point about originality. His constant references to the writings(and beliefs) of OTHERS seems to single him out as NOT original. More, blindly following what others have to espouse...
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
But I have to say that scientist do come out with some everyday or common expressions that just makes me smile. '...'slosh' around at the bottom...'
That's actually pretty quantifiable in fluid mechanics terms. And those types of behaviors don't work very well within the parameters generally developed for how dark matter "ought to" behave.

Meanwhile thanks for weighing in, @shavy. You gave me some things to think about.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 29, 2017
You made a good point about originality. His constant references to the writings(and beliefs) of OTHERS

The irony is rich, on one hand most here demand where the claims appear in the science literature and then on the other claim one is not being original when they do so. And all seem to be missing the issues CR is commenting on, scientific controversies. Is it really a "valid" scientific controversy if it is brought to bare by the opinions of random guy on the interweb? I think I know how that would go over, by posting the comments by known and published scientists it gives more creedence to the claims. Think of CR as the Phys.org of scientific controversies, more of an aggregation guy than an actual source.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (8) Oct 29, 2017
Re: "What is with you quoting various passages from here and there. We could all do that from sources that praise GR."

You spend every day listening to the reasons to believe the textbook theories. It's not uncommon these days to go through an entire day without seeing a single critique of a single textbook theory. Yet, that is not because there are no critiques.

For people who are not yet "cultured" into the anti-patterns here, they look at the absence of critiques as an implicit proof that the ideas are strong.

It's a lie. Many ideas -- Relativity perhaps being the best example -- have been attacked by critics since their inception.

The refusal by many publishers to publish critiques should not be confused with an absence of them -- yet, that is precisely what happens in places like this one.
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2017
I really don't care if people think that I am the problem. The real problem in cultures like this one is that people feel emboldened by their censorship. They start to actually believe that this world where they have instituted censorship of competing ideas is real.

It's not real.

What is real is that cosmology has ended up at a dead end. It's not a coincidence that the scientific community both believes it understands the universe and at the same time cannot account for 95% of it: Such paradoxes can only thrive in places where competing ideas have been chopped at the knees at every opportunity.

The irony here is that there is only way out of this dark matter problem: You HAVE to start expanding the circle of ideas you're listening to -- because, in terms of process, what's happening right now is not working.
ShotmanMaslo
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2017
The irony here is that there is only way out of this dark matter problem: You HAVE to start expanding the circle of ideas you're listening to -- because, in terms of process, what's happening right now is not working.


If you expand your mind too much you will end up in pseudoscience territory. For example, no matter how many problems scientific theories have, there is no reason to expand the circle until flat Earth is considered as an alternative model. Your primitive ramblings are a clear example of this, you just regurgitate almost anything you read with no discrimination.

Also there is no censorship and no limiting of ideas in physics. Plenty of very speculative and weird ideas are pursued in the hope of providing answers, including alternatives to dark matter such as MOND. But the idea must have at least some merit, to distinguish itself from mere random nonsense such as electric universe or denial of relativity.
katesisco
1 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
Has there been suggestions that this matter is the unusual form of non-bonding structure? Monoatomic elements and superconducting at Zero K?
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2017
If you like science, this should be very interesting. To first field some misunderstandings here, dark matter is evidenced from many different types observations such as the cosmic microwave background and is neither 'ad hoc' nor in question in physics. Neither is GR nor standard particle description, but they are also known to be incomplete which some of the comments note. And space, regardless of spacetime physics, is observed as perfectly flat from the cosmic microwave background spectra.

There has also been questions about the nature of cold dark matter, which is the actual topic of the article.

[tbctd]
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
Good a real astrophysicist. Tell it @torbjorn.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
[ctd] To quote the old astrobite about the preprint article:

"So far, astrophysical observations have taught us that dark matter is not relativistic (it's "cold"), it's not electrically charged (or it would interact with photons through the electromagnetic force and we would be able to see it!), and it can't have more than very rare interactions with normal matter through any force but gravity.

However, there are many things we still don't know about dark matter particles (in addition to the big one – what are they?), including the question addressed in today's paper – how do dark matter particles interact with each other? Do they pass through each other like they have passed through our detectors? Or can they bump into and scatter off of each other?"
[ https://astrobite...actions/ ]

[tbctd]
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
5 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
[ctd]

Immediately we understand that it is called "dark" and is non-atomic because we can see that it does not interact much by electromagnetic force.

Continuing on, the reported paper seems convincing and interesting. It notes that in other cases of tension between theory and observations, a better understanding of galaxies can remove that. But in this case we may face the observation that dark matter, as all other particles, self-scatter.

@Da Schneib: Not me, I am a bioinformatician with astrobiology interest (and physics background).
Mimath224
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2017
@cantdrive85
You made a good point about originality. His constant references to the writings(and beliefs) of OTHERS

The irony is rich, on one hand most .... Think of CR as the Phys.org of scientific controversies, more of an aggregation guy than an actual source.


Nope, I think you got that wrong. I was asking CR for his OWN opinion. Many here comment from there own experience, working in the field etc. I have made it clear that I am a layman but intimated where my opinion comes from. If someone doesn't agree with my stance that's fine and if I'm corrected I don't mind that either because I learn something. I don't hide behind a myriad of quoted passages from other sources as CR seems to do. The author's of those passages are not on this forum to converse with. If CR has formed a personal opinion let's hear it and discuss it.
IMP-9
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2017
@Da Schneib it looks like an interesting paper and the BAHAMAS team and Ian McCarthy in particular do very interesting work. It's an interesting claim which has been around before, it would be prudent however to ask for comparable simulations of clusters like this in warm and self-interacting dark matter. An important question remains of whether the modification you need is compatible with other observational constraints. If not then something else is happening. I'm cautious as many of these claims don't last more than a few years.
Benni
1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2017
An important question remains of whether the modification you need is compatible with other observational constraints. If not then something else is happening. I'm cautious as many of these claims don't last more than a few years.


Just love bouncing off zany stuff like this.

I guess you don't know in the 1930's Fritz Zwicky originally proposed that DM should ONLY exist in halos enveloping ONLY Spiral Galaxies, this as a proposed counter gravitational mass to keep spiral arms from imploding into the central hub.

Since the 1930's, the DM narrative about INFERRED GRAVITY has morphed into permeating EVERYTHING with the exception of ONLY our the solar system in which we live where none can be found.......talk about pseudo-science, yeah, coming from zany Zwicky who got off on calling real scientists like Einstein "spherical bastards" for dis-believing his concepts of Tired Light & Rocket Engines being inoperable outside the atmosphere.

Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
@torbjorn, thanks! That was very useful. The point about DM self-interacting was not clear to me before now. I may add astrobites to my favorites.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
@IMP, thanks for your take on this. Hopefully we get more constraining observations, and more powerful simulations, in the near future. The JWST should help with the first; who do you see doing work on the second?
Chris_Reeve
1.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
Re: "Think of CR as the Phys.org of scientific controversies, more of an aggregation guy than an actual source."

There is definitely an information design aspect to what is happening with modern science right now: Academia has proceeded through a process of ignoring, dismissing and ridiculing challenges to textbook theory. In terms of process, that stifles innovation in the sciences. Controversies are extremely important, because the history of science reveals that groundbreaking discoveries are oftentimes on the other side of them.

Consider the case of the laser, which transformed over just a few decades from being "impossible" according to the most recognized experts of the day, to now a weapon installed upon American naval ships.

In order to make sure that the Americans were the ones who had that weapon first, it was necessary to consider that the experts can be wrong. If we can systematize this process of questioning the experts, we create an innovation machine.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2017
Hey da schnied, maybe you could convince torby larsen or the gimp-0 to comment on your claims of the "open field lines" and the magnetic monopole you claimed to have discovered. I'm sure that would be interesting...
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
What I'm saying is that the anti-innovation culture which is on display in places like this has at times in the history of science presented an existential crisis for the United States. People who are quick to censor critique have no idea of the damage they cause -- because they actually have no idea what this critique is that they wish to censor.

At its root, censorship of critique is ultimately self-serving in that it allows the person who has invested a lot of their own personal time into learning something to experience a false sense of security about the validity of their knowledge.

This is people trading in concern for the truth of the matter so that they can FEEL secure in their knowledge.

This is not how we will get to the answers. It's how we will spin our wheels for another century. People need to be regularly confronted with their critics when theories become challenged. That is the spirit of science which creates progress.
Benni
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
This is not how we will get to the answers. It's how we will spin our wheels for another century. People need to be regularly confronted with their critics when theories become challenged. That is the spirit of science which creates progress.


Well, it's not advancing concepts Schneibo & that cadre of Perpetual Motion Mechanics living here, and besides, you must by now be encroaching on Schneibo's domain for leader of total cyberspace consumed in putting up Commentary........man, where do you guys find the time?
Chris_Reeve
1 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2017
Re: "you must by now be encroaching on Schneibo's domain for leader of total cyberspace consumed in putting up Commentary........man, where do you guys find the time?"

Realize that every single quote posted here can be viewed at https://www.contr...nce.com. Click the elephant and select 'Quotes' to see the list of 2,200+ quotes.

There is a method to the madness.
fastermx
4.6 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2017
All people seem to be doing here is quibbling. I'm no scientist, but my father was a pioneer in Biochemistry and in his day was renowned. He was a wise man.

And that wisdom one time came in this form: "I always listen to the quacks." I asked him why, and he said it was because many innovators in science were often called quacks at first. He listened to quacks in case that particular "quack" might happen to be one of them.

I think all the quibblers should just listen to what is said, and if they are scientists, do their own research to sharpen our knowledge of dark matter. We're only in the infancy of trying to study it. So why make hard statements? A wait-and-see approach is best, plus doing your own research, if you're qualified and able.

It's a shame that personality is injected into science. It slows the process to inject egos, orthodoxy and attitudes into the mixture. It also helps a lot to know the difference between attitude and opinion
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Oct 29, 2017
@fastermx Well, that's fine...up to a point. My father was an engineer but veered to the philosophical side of things. He would argue that 'quacks' are generally people who do something for their own gain (maybe even fraudulent) but people with a difference of opinion would be 'rebels' if they were extreme in attitude or simply an 'objector' if their opinions were opposite to mainstream but worthy of consideration.
So I'm inclined to say that 'quack' isn't really the right noun for those who have been cited in this thread or those here who maintain a different stance to mainstream physics.
As for attitudes, egos etc. unless you are a robot such overlaps are bound to happen and as long as there is some self control I don't think it harms science. Indeed, a passion to seek the truth (or result) is often the driving force for progress.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2017
MM and faster,
Not least to mention... this is a science article aggregagation site, not an actual science site...
And we can see now, that Chris isn't actually reading all of those papers he quotes. He just snips and pastes Quotes...
Not very scientific...
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2017
And that wisdom one time came in this form: "I always listen to the quacks."
@fastermx
there is a big difference between listening and accepting their ideas on faith
- and considering your fathers field of expertise, the one thing i can guarantee is that he accepted no pseudoscience, especially if it had no empirical evidence or predictability and it was directly contradicted by evidence, experimentation and observation

what you're seeing with certain posters above fighting against the idiocy isn't "egos, orthodoxy and attitudes" so much as it's a long, exasperating fight against the spread of pseudoscience and outright fraudulent claims

see also: https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

far too many people assume the comments in this news aggregate are a source of science - and they have no critical thinking skills or ability to differentiate science from pseudoscience

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2017
@fastermx cont'd
We're only in the infancy of trying to study it. So why make hard statements?
there are some hard statements that can be made, especially against certain types of pseudoscience

for instance: chris_reeve (also hannesalfven) believes in the electric universe pseudoscience (hereafter "eu")

the eu is debunked very thoroughly by multiple sources, evidence, physics and their complete lack of anything other than claims (making them a religious cult, not anything scientific)

so you can make a hard claim about the eu
that doesn't mean they don't occasionally get something correct, mind you - but hard statements can be made about their beliefs, much like you can debunk creationists, aether advocates or most other religions (except the flying spaghetti monster - obviously that must be true)

PS - this has been going on for years, BTW, and the eu cultists have created multiple socks to continue their advocacy for their beliefs
CarnSoaks
not rated yet Oct 31, 2017
The researchers compared their observations to the predictions from the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydro-dynamical simulations. According to the Standard Model of dark matter (called "cold dark matter"), this wobbling doesn't exist because the enormous density of dark matter keeps it tightly bound at the center of the galaxy cluster. ...suggests the existence of yet-unknown physics that have not been accounted for.

The biggest problem they are having ... But hey, I'm sure some clever guy will come along and propose some ad hoc band aid explanation to patch up this failure and falsification of their faerie dust conjectures.


are these peoples considering the orbital mechanics / phenomenon like precession. Does not every object in an orbit, orbit about a shared centre of mass. Nothing is stationary, always some MORE mass out there in a system causing some WOBBLE. eg mercury, eg Sun eg mergers
IMP-9
5 / 5 (2) Oct 31, 2017
@IMP, thanks for your take on this. Hopefully we get more constraining observations, and more powerful simulations, in the near future. The JWST should help with the first; who do you see doing work on the second?


Allegedly the Illustris team are working on self-interacting dark matter clusters. I know there was also some work being done in Europe on it but I don't know if the latter actually includes galaxies, I believe the simulations were more tuned towards cluster mergers like the Bullet Cluster.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Oct 31, 2017
Thanks @IMP. Sounds like there aren't many players in this space yet. Is it mostly a matter of the programming difficulty, or is it the hardware?
Mimath224
not rated yet Oct 31, 2017
I have just read an article published yesterday in Physics by Dan Hooper of the Fermi Accelerator Lab .Batavia, USA. It mentions the XENON and PandaX-II collaborations and how no detections have been made.This one of the quotes; 'For a dark matter particle with a mass of 100 GeV, for example, each of these collaborations rule out cross sections for such interactions that are larger than about 10^−46 cm^2, per nucleon ' and another quote is '...The dark matter, it turns out, is not what many of us in the particle theory community imagined it was likely to be...'
I do realize that this speaks of ground base detection concerning our own local, but I'm just wondering on the general point that if we are unable to detect DM candidate particles here just how much more difficult does that make it for extra galactic DM? I would appreciate comments that might put any interpretation by me into correct perspective. Thanks in advance.

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.