New hunt for dark matter: Physicists theorize a novel way to explore the nature of dark matter with lasers

New hunt for dark matter: Physicists theorize a novel way to explore the nature of dark matter with lasers
Researchers have designed a way to give the long tunnel arms of gravitational-wave observatories like KAGRA in Japan the ability to potentially also detect axion dark matter. Credit: University of Tokyo Institute for Cosmic Ray Research

Dark matter is only known by its effect on massive astronomical bodies, but has yet to be directly observed or even identified. A theory about what dark matter might be suggests that it could be a particle called an axion and that these could be detectable with laser-based experiments that already exist. These laser experiments are gravitational-wave observatories.

The hunt is on for dark matter. There are many theories as to what manner of thing it might turn out to be, but many physicists believe dark matter is a weakly interacting massive particle, or WIMP. What this means is that it does not interact easily with ordinary matter. We know this to be true because it hasn't been seen directly yet. But it must also have at least some mass as its presence can be inferred by its .

There have been enormous efforts to detect WIMP dark matter, including with the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, but WIMPs haven't been observed yet. An alternative candidate particle gaining attention is the .

"We assume the axion is very light and barely interacts with our familiar kinds of matter. Therefore, it is considered as a good candidate for dark matter," said Assistant Professor Yuta Michimura from the Department of Physics at the University of Tokyo. "We don't know the mass of axions, but we usually think it has a mass less than that of electrons. Our universe is filled with dark matter and it's estimated there are 500 grams of dark matter within the Earth, about the mass of a squirrel."

New hunt for dark matter: Physicists theorize a novel way to explore the nature of dark matter with lasers
A schematic for the proposed instrument to hunt for axion dark matter. The project is ongoing at the University of Tokyo Institute for Cosmic Ray Research. Credit: 2019 Nagano et al

Axions seem like a good candidate for dark matter, but since they may only interact very weakly with , they are extraordinarily difficult to detect. So physicists devise increasingly intricate ways to compensate for this lack of interaction in the hope of revealing the telltale signature of dark matter, which makes up over a quarter of the visible universe.

"Our models suggest axion dark matter modulates light polarization, which is the orientation of the oscillation of electromagnetic waves," explained Koji Nagano, a graduate student at the Institute for Cosmic Ray Research at the University of Tokyo. "This polarization modulation can be enhanced if the light is reflected back and forth many times in an optical cavity composed of two parallel mirrors apart from each other. The best-known examples of these kinds of cavities are the long tunnel arms of gravitational-wave observatories."

Dark matter research does not get as much attention or funding as other more applicable areas of scientific research, so great efforts are made to find ways to make the hunt cost-effective. This is relevant as other theoretical ways to observe axions involve extremely strong magnetic fields which incur great expense. Here, researchers suggest that existing gravitational-wave observatories such as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) in the U.S., Virgo in Italy or KAGRA in Japan could be cheaply modified to hunt for axions without detriment to their existing functions.

New hunt for dark matter: Physicists theorize a novel way to explore the nature of dark matter with lasers
This chart compares the sensitivity of gravitational-wave detectors suitable for the axion hunt. The project is ongoing at the University of Tokyo Institute for Cosmic Ray Research. Credit: Nagano et al

"With our new scheme, we could search for axions by adding some polarization optics in front of photodiode sensors in gravitational-wave detectors," described Michimura. "The next step I would like to see is the implementation of optics to a gravitational-wave detector like KAGRA."

This idea has promise because the upgrades to the facilities would not reduce the sensitivity they rely on for their primary function, which is to detect distant gravitational waves. Attempts have been made with experiments and observations to find the axion, but thus far no positive signal has been found. The researchers' proposed method would be far more precise.

"There is overwhelming astrophysical and cosmological evidence that dark matter exists, but the question "What is dark matter?" is one of the biggest outstanding problems in modern physics," said Nagano. "If we can detect axions and say for sure they are , it would be a truly exciting event indeed. It's what physicists like us dream for."


Explore further

Gravitational wave detectors might be able to detect dark matter particles colliding with their mirrors

More information: Koji Nagano et al. Axion Dark Matter Search with Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detectors, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.111301
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: New hunt for dark matter: Physicists theorize a novel way to explore the nature of dark matter with lasers (2019, September 18) retrieved 18 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-dark-physicists-theorize-explore-nature.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
320 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 18, 2019
"Our universe is filled with dark matter and it's estimated there are 500 grams of dark matter within the Earth, about the mass of a squirrel."

1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? Such a 5:1 ratio solution also does not bode well for the presumed ratio within the Intergalactic Medium.

It is proposed that there exists 0.3 particles of DM in every cm³ within the IGM, this in contrast to new spectroscopy data gathered in 2016 proving there definitively exists a minimum of 1.0 atoms of hydrogen/helium within every cm³ of the same Intergalactic Medium, this is a 3.3:1 ratio of Ordinary Matter over DM. So where does all the INFERRED GRAVITY come from?

Sep 18, 2019
"Our universe is filled with dark matter and it's estimated there are 500 grams of dark matter within the Earth, about the mass of a squirrel."

1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? Such a 5:1 ratio solution also does not bode well for the presumed ratio within the Intergalactic Medium.

It is proposed that there exists 0.3 particles of DM in every cm³ within the IGM, this in contrast to new spectroscopy data gathered in 2016 proving there definitively exists a minimum of 1.0 atoms of hydrogen/helium within every cm³ of the same Intergalactic Medium, this is a 3.3:1 ratio of Ordinary Matter over DM. So where does all the INFERRED GRAVITY come from?
'proposed'
'new' '2016'
'definitely'
Nothing like a word salad garnished with slices of apples and oranges.

Sep 18, 2019
Benni, since we know almost nothing about the DM particles, it would be difficult to estimate their density. Instead, the mass density of DM could be estimated much easier. For what we know, a DM particle could be heavier than a hydrogen atom, it could even be a black hole.

Sep 18, 2019
Gonna have to stick up for Benni here. Why is he not entitled to a bit of word salad when nearly every cosmology article is liberally laced with if, buts, perhaps and maybe's?If its good for the goose..

Sep 18, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 18, 2019
Down voted for telling the truth. No problems, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, unless it's not the right one. Braune hemden fetzt überhaupt nicht. I'm waiting for the "peer reviewed" comment. Look where it got Galileo. Science is the new religion

Sep 18, 2019
Down voted for telling the truth. I'm waiting for the "peer reviewed" comment. Look where it got Galileo. Science is the new religion

You are a representation of the problem with the skepticism around modern science. You have predetermined views that clash with reality and when that is shown you balk and cry bias even though any actual work of science would be able to be tested by anyone including yourself. The loons on this site fail to ever put forward an alternative to the current aggregate that works with our observed universe, should I expect something different from you?
No problems, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, unless it's not the right one. Braune hemden fetzt überhaupt nicht.

There are no opinions in science. And there is no gestapo within the scientific community controlling what information is put out.

Sep 18, 2019
Benni, since we know almost nothing about the DM particles, it would be difficult to estimate their density. For what we know, a DM particle could be heavier than a hydrogen atom, it could even be a black hole.
.....so within every cm³ of the IGM there could exist 0.3 the mass of a BH, is that what you're conjecturing?

I suspect you don't even know how the 5:1 ratio of DM to Ordinary Matter was inferred by Pop-Cosmology culture.

Way back in the 20th Century it was presumed the space between galaxies contained OM of such minute quantity of distribution that brainiac Cosmologists felt it safe to declare the ratio was somewhere between 10 and 5 to 1 of DM to OM. Then along came 21st Century Spectroscopy technology & spoiled that party by detecting a minimum of 1.0 atoms of OM in every cm³ of the IGM. So to negate the new findings of OM, Pop-Cosmology has a new INFERENCE it can't prove, that DM particle for particle must be 5 times heavier than hydrogen/helium?


Sep 18, 2019
Down voted for telling the truth. No problems, everybody is entitled to their own opinion, unless it's not the right one. Braune hemden fetzt überhaupt nicht. I'm waiting for the "peer reviewed" comment. Look where it got Galileo. Science is the new religion

Only in this religion, the blind faithful, rush in to burn and pelt the heretics with the thumbs-down.

Sep 18, 2019
If they are exploring the nature of Axions they will find it is both monetary and figmental.

Think of a ripple like a target logo, smear it out until it goes flat where the inevitable gap between spiral arms once began as a region swept of matter between ring and core. Even spreading between ring and core produces a flat galactic spin profile. This is a stationary-type quasi-stable wave feature commonly seen in galactic gravity because it is a fundamental stationary-type spin-2-based feature reflected in all galactic-scale gravity. The galactic scale is essentially set by fundamental particle E/G ratios.

Sep 18, 2019
You'd be better of describing Gravity and Magnetism before coming up with this bullshit.
"Lighter than an Electron" is not Dark matter full stop.

The 70% comes from the weight space "work" paradigm.
I.E. The proton mass will grow to match the neutron mass
(Giving a 50/50 split of actual weight in the atom).

Magnetism is 0.7 of the Strong nuclear force, so because magnetism is the expression of the deeper weights' exposed gravity we get ...

50%+20% is dark (Below the proton weight)
30% is visible. (Protons weights and above).

Sep 19, 2019
Isn't the density of intergalactic space (ignoring the large-scale filaments) more like 1 atom per cubic meter (not centimeter), with interstellar space closer to 1 atom per cubic centimeter?

Sep 19, 2019
Isn't the density of intergalactic space (ignoring the large-scale filaments) more like 1 atom per cubic meter (not centimeter), with interstellar space closer to 1 atom per cubic centimeter?
Yep. Then there's the fact @Benni didn't talk about mass of DM/cc, but about some claim about "how many DM particles" /cc.

That one lies all the time.

Sep 19, 2019
Circle of life.
Re.Your reply. I would like to thank you for your comment which only reiterates my original view.Firstly, why am I "a representation of the problem blah blah?" What are my predetermined views?" I never offered any opinion or view,I only oppined that many of the articles posted here are full of the word salad that a lot of regular contributors find so annoying.Take the above article.It has might be,could be twice in the second sentence.And you tell me there are no opinions in science? How is Susi ,string theory and Calabi yau spacetime getting on?At the end,only opinions and theories. Science is never settled as it is a progressive discipline.And then you say science would be able to be tested by anyone.Chemistry maybe,but not Cosmology. Have they invented Lego Ligo? Most of the ideas in modern cosmology are themselves untestable ,only gedanken experiments,that owing to their nature can NEVER be proven.

Sep 19, 2019
Codswallop Martinchen.
It would have been proven and validated years ago if the Governments of the world weren't fucking thieving MAGGOTS.
They love dickheads pontificating about bullshit, that makes the theft even easier!.
Susi and String theory are valid for the EM fields they represent and always will be.
They are only half the story is what they are not allowed to tell anyone.
******************** WHY ? ******************************
BECAUSE THE MODERN CURRICULUM IS MANAGED BY A BUNCH OF THIEVING MAGGOTS!
***************************************************************************************************************

Sep 19, 2019
I think it is an excellent practice in scientific disinterest to openly explore alternatives to a monological/monotheoretical research regime, especially as LIGO is not doing so, contributing to general distrust of the project and a perception of deficiency (costs versus data quality) with prematurity. KAGRA and Virgo have more than one life, and even though DAMA/ANAIS/COSINE results seem to be related to the terrestrial modulation that affects substorms, science should carry forward. https://photos.ap...8e53jd28
https://photos.ap...heDuZmL9
https://photos.ap...qLFHkBx8
https://photos.ap...g65YVKWA
https://photos.ap...CJSM3sa7

Sep 19, 2019
Isn't the density of intergalactic space (ignoring the large-scale filaments) more like 1 atom per cubic meter (not centimeter), with interstellar space closer to 1 atom per cubic centimeter?


Sounds about right. At 1 AU from the Sun, we are only seeing ~ 7 ions per cc.

Sep 19, 2019
Isn't the density of intergalactic space (ignoring the large-scale filaments) more like 1 atom per cubic meter (not centimeter), with interstellar space closer to 1 atom per cubic centimeter?
Yep. Then there's the fact @Benni didn't talk about mass of DM/cc, but about some claim about "how many DM particles" /cc.
......that was back in the last century when there was 0 (zero) data available for the IGM, the density you gave of 1 atom/m³ was ASSIGNED because it couldn't be MEASURED, they figured there must be something there so they gave it one.

However in the 21st Century new hi-tech spectroscopy measurements replace those old numbers. The University of California, San Diego quotes an interstellar density of 1 atom per cubic centimeter, a number also found in numerous other sources who now use new data.

http://casswww.uc...ISM.html

Sep 19, 2019
So we shouldn't look, @Benni?

Gee, sounds like you trying to censor science.

Oh and BTW, you lied again: it's 1 atom/cc in the ISM, but 1 atom/m^3 in the IGM. And got caught lying again. And look like the troll liar denier fool you are again.

Why don't you leave? You just keep making a fool of yourself.

Sep 19, 2019
Benni's priceless quote:

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter?"

.035274 grams * 500 = 17.637 grams

Why are converting 500 grams into 17.537 grams!?

The article clearly states "Our universe is filled with dark matter and it's estimated there are 500 grams of dark matter within the Earth, about the mass of a squirrel."

Then why on earth would you divide that number by the weight of the earth!?
(17.637 grams)/(weight of earth)

You are dividing grams by weight (kg m/s²)

If you convert kg to grams the units of your final result are

seconds²/meter

I'll leave it to you to calculate the "weight" of the earth.


Sep 19, 2019
@Benni

Let me calculate for you since you can't do math.

500 grams of dark matter = .5 kg of dark matter.

(.5 kg)/ (mass of earth) = (.5 kg)/(5.972e+24 kg) = 8.3724046e-26 (notice there are no units left over)

This is indeed a very small ratio of dark matter to the matter.

You assume this ratio holds everywhere.

It's always the assumptions that come back to haunt us.

Sep 19, 2019
@jimmy, remember it's not mass per mass- it's mass per volume, for DM. That will change your calculations some. It doesn't matter how much mass there is in Earth vs. how much mass is in DM; the ratio you need is mass of DM per *volume* of Earth.

HTH

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Schneib

You are correct.

Benni was calculating mass/mass.

I didn't want to confuse him with volume.

I was just pointing out his mathematical errors.

It's difficult keeping it simple with him since he can't calculate 1 + 2/2

I don't think he can calculate volume.

Sep 19, 2019
@Da Scheib

Sorry Benni was trying to calculate a ratio of masses but ended up with mass/Force.

Baby steps with baby Benni.

I wrote "You assume this ratio holds everywhere." to him.
I should have explained further.


Sep 19, 2019
@Benni

Still waiting on your calculation for the weight of the earth.


Sep 19, 2019
NP, @jimmy. I just thought I'd point it out. Keep in mind that @Benni always tries to conflate incompatible variables in order to keep on lying. It's something to watch out for and stifle.

Sep 19, 2019
Benni was calculating mass/mass.
.....I was comparing #'s of particles, not calculating anything..

Also I was not comparing mass of one particle to the other as you two psycho-babble on about, this can't be done because a DM particle has never been found, therefore it's mass can't be determined.

The 20th Century Pop-Cosmologists are the ones who fixed the IGM/ISM DM density at 0.3 particles/cm³. They followed up that dumb mistake by fixing IGM/ISM at one atom/m³, colossal mistake as 21st Century spectroscopy confirms. Baryonic matter probably exceeds even the 1.0 atoms/cm³ because sub-atomic particles are not included in the count and neither is nano-particle size dust.

So how about if one of the two of you followup & inform us what the MASS of a DM particle is? Then we can make a MASS to MASS calculation to compare gravity effects of ordinary matter to your cosmic fairy dust.


Sep 19, 2019

@Benni I quote you

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? "

That is you calculating.

Sep 19, 2019
@Benni

Please calculate (500 * 0.035274 grams)/(weight of the earth) for us.

Again your quote:

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter?"

Calculate it for us please.


Sep 19, 2019
@Benni
You said ".....I was comparing #'s of particles, not calculating anything.."

Number of what particles?

You calculated a ratio of dark matter mass to the earths weight.


Sep 19, 2019
@Benni

And as Da Schneib pointed out you didn't consider volume.

This is your exact quote:

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? Such a 5:1 ratio solution also does not bode well for the presumed ratio within the Intergalactic Medium."

Sep 19, 2019
Benni. I realize you can't do basic math and I may never get an answer, but I'm still hoping/'weighting' on your calculation of the weight of the Earth.

Sep 19, 2019
@Benni
You said ".....I was comparing #'s of particles, not calculating anything.."

Number of what particles?
Precisely. @Benni quotes a particle count for WIMPs, ignoring the fact that the article is about axions. And tries to pretend weight is density.

And is now pretending numbers of particles can be discussed without calculation.

Luser alert.

Sep 19, 2019
@Benni

Back this up

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? Such a 5:1 ratio solution also does not bode well for the presumed ratio within the Intergalactic Medium."

Calculate it for us.

What is "divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth" ?

(this number) * (500) / (weight of Earth) =

Sep 19, 2019
It's all "psycho-babble" right Benni?

"psycho-babble" = anything you can't comprehend.

Sad thing is many posters here can help you understand but you refuse to listen to them and learn.

I hope one day you realize you suffer from a Narcissistic personality disorder and seek help. Not for your sake but for everyone you deal with in real life. It must be a nightmare for them.


Sep 20, 2019
@Benni

Back this up

"1 ounce= 0.035274 grams. So, if I were to divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth, how would that math solution lead anyone to believe the mass of the Universe is 80% dark matter? Such a 5:1 ratio solution also does not bode well for the presumed ratio within the Intergalactic Medium."

Calculate it for us.

What is "divide 500 times this number by the weight of the Earth" ?

(this number) * (500) / (weight of Earth) =
.....if you can't figure this out on your own, you shouldn't be here, the same with 1/0.

"psycho-babble" = anything you can't comprehend.
.....anything that is Pop-Cosmology fantasy, like declaring the existence of a particle for which there is no definable MASS such as there is for an atom of hydrogen.

Sep 20, 2019
I did calculate it scroll up.
But I used the mass of the earth.
You do realize weight is not mass.
Weight is a force.

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni from my earlier comment.

"Let me calculate for you since you can't do math.

500 grams of dark matter = .5 kg of dark matter.

(.5 kg)/ (mass of earth) = (.5 kg)/(5.972e+24 kg) = 8.3724046e-26 (notice there are no units left over)"

Also 1/0 is undefined

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni

"In mathematics, division by zero is division where the divisor (denominator) is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as
a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, the expression has no meaning, as there is no number which, when multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a ≠ 0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression
0/0 is also undefined;"

https://en.m.wiki..._by_zero

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni from my earlier comment.

"Let me calculate for you since you can't do math.

500 grams of dark matter = .5 kg of dark matter.

(.5 kg)/ (mass of earth) = (.5 kg)/(5.972e+24 kg) = 8.3724046e-26 (notice there are no units left over)"

Also 1/0 is undefined
.....then why if you already knew the answers to all your questions did you ask me?

Hey, jimbo, you're the guy with all the answers.....what's the WEIGHT of a DM Particle? What's the MASS of a DM Particle?

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni is getting desperate. His current fallacy is the Missing Data Fallacy.

Sep 20, 2019
"In mathematics, ...zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as
a/0 where a is the dividend (numerator). In ordinary arithmetic, ... has no meaning, as there is no number which, when multiplied by 0, gives a (assuming a ≠ 0), and so division by zero is undefined. Since any number multiplied by zero is zero, the expression
0/0 is also undefined;"

https://en.m.wiki..._by_zero

Well, jimmyblobber, ain't yer smrt.
So, picture the number line, with infinite numbers to the left and right, of 0. Everyone of which obey the simple rules of arithmetic, +, -, / and x. All but, special case 0. Along comes yer, the sucker for stupidity, clicks on the wiki and sees that long rigmarole to 'splain away, why little 0 is mental. You see, poor fella still struggling with, should he be neg..pos.. - +. Anyway, smrt you don't understand a word of it, but imagines, yup that looks bright. So, yer copy and paste, nods the empty noggin and imagines, ain't I smrt.

Sep 20, 2019
OK, @tehgeighalgore, what's 1/0?

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni is getting desperate. His current fallacy is the Missing Data Fallacy.

Not as desperate as @DaSchitebo. His current fallacy is the, He Ain't Missing Dong Fallacy.

Sep 20, 2019
OK, @tehgeighalgore, what's 1/0?

What's the lower limit of DaSchitebo's stupidity, for 1000, Alex.

Ans: Undefinable

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni is getting desperate. His current fallacy is the Missing Data Fallacy.


Hey, jimbo, you're the guy with all the answers.....what's the WEIGHT of a DM Particle? What's the MASS of a DM Particle?
......well then schneibo, if you imagine you're so much smarter, how about if YOU answer the questions?

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni is getting desperate. His current fallacy is the Missing Data Fallacy.


Not as desperate as @DaSchitebo. His current fallacy is the, He Ain't Missing Dong Fallacy.
.....now I call this a low blow.

Sep 20, 2019
@Benni is getting desperate. His current fallacy is the Missing Data Fallacy.


Hey, jimbo, you're the guy with all the answers.....what's the WEIGHT of a DM Particle? What's the MASS of a DM Particle?
......well then schneibo, if you imagine you're so much smarter, how about if YOU answer the questions?


Uh, oh, the two non-math geniuses are not responding. Maybe still looking for updates on IGM/ISM density so you know better than put up that mid-20th Century made up 5:1 ratio?

Ah, come on, the two of you know you want to say the MASS of a DM Particle is five times that of a hydrogen atom, right? This means you KNOW the MASS, right? So tell us where you found it so the rest of us can join the missing mass party you guys attend at those Trekkie Conventions overflowing with pointy tinfoil hats.

Sep 20, 2019
"With our new scheme....

The Darkists admit they're search is a scheme.

Sep 20, 2019
@antigoracle
Zero is defined as a number. The quotient 1/0 is undefined.
Google "graph 1/x"
Or graph it yourself.
What do you see as x approaches zero?


Sep 21, 2019
OK. Now you.
Google "graph 0/x"
Or graph it yourself.
What do you see as x approaches zero?
What does that say about your wiki definition. -- 0/0 is also undefined


Sep 21, 2019
F(x) = 0/x = 0 for all x accept x = 0. That is undefined.

It's obvious.
There is a hole at x=0.

https://www.onlin...ion.html

Do you understand vertical asymptotes and holes?
I'm done teaching. You are going to have to teach yourself highschool algebra.

Sep 21, 2019
Actually I'm wrong. Since 0/x is not a division of two polynomials the there is no hole.
Y just equals 0.

Time for bed

Sep 21, 2019
@antigoracle
Zero is defined as a number. The quotient 1/0 is undefined.
Google "graph 1/x"
Or graph it yourself.
What do you see as x approaches zero?
.........jimmybobber

Sep 21, 2019
@Benni

And?

1/x is undefined at x = 0

reductio ad absurdum:

Assume 1/0 = some real number

Let a = 1/x,
Then multiple both sides by x
Then ax = 1
When x = 0
a(0) = 1
Which is absurd.
There is no number times zero that equals 1.
Therefore 1/x when x = 0 is undefined.
Therefore you are ....

This can be proved in a more general way but I'm not sure you'd follow it.


Sep 21, 2019
Therefore 1/x when x = 0 is undefined.

@jimmybobber
Answer me this.
Is it the result or the operation itself, that's undefined?

Sep 21, 2019
There is no result Antigoracle.
Division by zero is undefined.


Sep 21, 2019
@jimmybobber
@antigoracle.
There is no result Antigoracle.
Division by zero is undefined.
Actually, the reality is that there is NO 'operation'; because such a construct/expression as 0/x and/or x/0 is a NON-thing, ie, a NON-action. It 'exists' ONLY within the defined construct of axioms which effectively defines them AS 'undefined'. Such an axiomatic construct is based on UNREAL notions and hence the 'maths' breaks down when that 'unreality' is made unambiguously evident by the 'need' to include 'undefined' as part of the maths lexicon as an 'excuse' for NOT having to face the fact that such real constructs are inherently incapable of treating physical reality contexts. In a truly complete reality-based axiomatics mathematical construct there should be no need nor any room for 'undefined' category/excuses. Have fun trying to make sense of the unreal mathematical construct mathematicians/physicists have been trying (and failing) to deduce/model a complete ToE with! :)

Sep 22, 2019
@RealityCheck

"When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature."
https://en.wikipe...hematics

Math is a tool.

You are philosophizing about mathematics.


Sep 22, 2019
You are philosophizing about mathematics.
.....and YOU are psycho-babbling about it.

Sep 22, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@RealityCheck

"When mathematical structures are good models of real phenomena, then mathematical reasoning can provide insight or predictions about nature."
https://en.wikipe...hematics

Math is a tool.

You are philosophizing about mathematics.

Note the qualifying term "When" at the start of your quote from wiki, mate. THAT tells you that even wiki acknowledges that the current maths does/can NOT ALWAYS model reality. I trust you now get what my point is? :)

Anyhow, in re your assertion that I am the one '"philosophising about mathematics"; you obviously missed the point that the 'zero' and 'dimensionless point' concepts included in current mathematical construct ARE THEMSELVES MERE METAPHYSICAL/PHILOSOPHICAL NOTIONS having NO effective meanings in PHYSICAL REALITY contexts/constructs. Please get that point before again mis-attributing to me what the current UNREAL-axiomatic/notional mathematical construct ALREADY IS at root. Ok? :)

Sep 23, 2019
So I was wondering, if one were to try and create dark matter, how would one proceed? Can the LHC try smashing stuff and see if all energy is accounted for?

Sep 23, 2019
So I was wondering, if one were to try and create dark matter, how would one proceed? Can the LHC try smashing stuff and see if all energy is accounted for?
Yes, see Searching for Dark Matter with the ATLAS detector

Also see the latest paper published by the ATLAS Collaboration: Constraints on mediator-based dark matter and scalar dark energy models using s√=13 TeV pp collision data collected by the ATLAS detector

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