This is how a 'fuzzy' universe may have looked

New 'fuzzy' dark matter research disrupts conventional thinking
Simulations of how galaxies form in cold, warm and fuzzy (left to right) dark matter scenarios. Credit: Universities of Princeton, Sussex, Cambridge

Dark matter was likely the starting ingredient for brewing up the very first galaxies in the universe. Shortly after the Big Bang, particles of dark matter would have clumped together in gravitational "halos," pulling surrounding gas into their cores, which over time cooled and condensed into the first galaxies.

Although dark matter is considered the backbone to the structure of the universe, scientists know very little about its nature, as the particles have so far evaded detection.

Now scientists at MIT, Princeton University, and Cambridge University have found that the early universe, and the very first galaxies, would have looked very different depending on the nature of dark matter. For the first time, the team has simulated what early galaxy formation would have looked like if dark matter were "fuzzy," rather than cold or warm.

In the most widely accepted scenario, dark matter is cold, made up of slow-moving particles that, aside from gravitational effects, have no interaction with ordinary matter. Warm dark matter is thought to be a slightly lighter and faster version of cold dark matter. And fuzzy dark matter, a relatively new concept, is something entirely different, consisting of ultralight particles, each about 1 octillionth (10-27) the mass of an electron (a cold dark matter particle is far heavier—about 105 times more massive than an electron).

In their simulations, the researchers found that if dark matter is cold, then galaxies in the early universe would have formed in nearly spherical halos. But if the nature of dark matter is fuzzy or warm, the early universe would have looked very different, with galaxies forming first in extended, tail-like filaments. In a fuzzy universe, these filaments would have appeared striated, like star-lit strings on a harp.

As new telescopes come online, with the ability to see further back into the early universe, scientists may be able to deduce, from the pattern of galaxy formation, whether the nature of dark matter, which today makes up nearly 85 percent of the matter in the universe, is fuzzy as opposed to cold or warm.

"The first galaxies in the early universe may illuminate what type of dark matter we have today," says Mark Vogelsberger, associate professor of physics in MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "Either we see this filament pattern, and fuzzy dark matter is plausible, or we don't, and we can rule that model out. We now have a blueprint for how to do this."

Vogelsberger is a co-author of a paper appearing in Physical Review Letters, along with the paper's lead author, Philip Mocz of Princeton University, and Anastasia Fialkov of Cambridge University and previously the University of Sussex.

Fuzzy waves

While dark matter has yet to be directly detected, the hypothesis that describes dark matter as cold has proven successful at describing the large-scale structure of the observable universe. As a result, models of galaxy formation are based on the assumption that dark matter is cold.

"The problem is, there are some discrepancies between observations and predictions of cold dark matter," Vogelsberger points out. "For example, if you look at very small galaxies, the inferred distribution of dark matter within these galaxies doesn't perfectly agree with what theoretical models predict. So there is tension there."

Enter, then, alternative theories for dark matter, including warm, and fuzzy, which researchers have proposed in recent years.

"The nature of dark matter is still a mystery," Fialkov says. "Fuzzy dark matter is motivated by fundamental physics, for instance, string theory, and thus is an interesting dark matter candidate. Cosmic structures hold the key to validating or ruling out such dark matter modles."

Fuzzy dark matter is made up of particles that are so light that they act in a quantum, wave-like fashion, rather than as individual particles. This quantum, fuzzy nature, Mocz says, could have produced early galaxies that look entirely different from what standard models predict for cold dark matter.

New 'fuzzy' dark matter research disrupts conventional thinking
Simulations of how the filament (tail) of a galaxy forms in cold, warm and fuzzy (left to right) dark matter scenarios. Credit: Universities of Princeton, Cambridge and Sussex

"Even though in the late universe these different dark matter scenarios may predict similar shapes for galaxies, the first galaxies would be strikingly different, which will give us a clue about what dark matter is," Mocz says.

To see how different a cold and a fuzzy early universe could be, the researchers simulated a small, cubic space of the early universe, measuring about 3 million light years across, and ran it forward in time to see how galaxies would form given one of the three dark matter scenarios: cold, warm, and fuzzy.

The team began each simulation by assuming a certain distribution of dark matter, which scientists have some idea of, based on measurements of the cosmic microwave background—"relic radiation" that was emitted by, and was detected just 400,000 years after, the Big Bang.

"Dark matter doesn't have a constant density, even at these early times," Vogelsberger says. "There are tiny perturbations on top of a constant density field."

The researchers were able to use existing algorithms to simulate galaxy formation under scenarios of cold and warm dark matter. But to simulate fuzzy dark matter, with its quantum nature, they needed a new approach.

A map of harp strings

The researchers modified their simulation of cold dark matter, enabling it to solve two extra equations in order to simulate galaxy formation in a fuzzy dark matter universe. The first, Schrödinger's equation, describes how a quantum particle acts as a wave, while the second, Poisson's equation, describes how that wave generates a density field, or distribution of dark matter, and how that distribution leads to gravity—the force that eventually pulls in matter to form galaxies. They then coupled this simulation to a model that describes the behavior of gas in the universe, and the way it condenses into galaxies in response to gravitational effects.

In all three scenarios, galaxies formed wherever there were over-densities, or large concentrations of gravitationally collapsed dark matter. The pattern of this dark matter, however, was different, depending on whether it was cold, warm, or fuzzy.

In a scenario of cold dark matter, galaxies formed in spherical halos, as well as smaller subhalos. Warm dark matter produced first galaxies in tail-like filaments, and no subhalos. This may be due to warm dark matter's lighter, faster nature, making particles less likely to stick around in smaller, subhalo clumps.

Similar to warm dark matter, fuzzy dark matter formed stars along filaments. But then quantum wave effects took over in shaping the galaxies, which formed more striated filaments, like strings on an invisible harp. Vogelsberger says this striated pattern is due to interference, an effect that occurs when two waves overlap. When this occurs, for instance in waves of light, the points where the crests and troughs of each wave align form darker spots, creating an alternating pattern of bright and dark regions.

In the case of fuzzy dark matter, instead of bright and dark points, it generates an alternating pattern of over-dense and under-dense concentrations of dark matter.

"You would get a lot of gravitational pull at these over-densities, and the gas would follow, and at some point would form galaxies along those over-densities, and not the under-densities," Vogelsberger explains. "This picture would be replicated throughout the early universe."

The team is developing more detailed predictions of what early galaxies may have looked like in a universe dominated by fuzzy dark matter. Their goal is to provide a map for upcoming telescopes, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, that may be able to look far enough back in time to spot the earliest galaxies. If they see filamentary galaxies such as those simulated by Mocz, Fialkov, Vogelsberger, and their colleagues, it could be the first signs that dark matter's nature is fuzzy.

"It's this observational test we can provide for the nature of dark matter, based on observations of the early universe, which will become feasible in the next couple of years," Vogelsberger says.


Explore further

Looking for warm dark matter

More information: Philip Mocz et al, First Star-Forming Structures in Fuzzy Cosmic Filaments, Physical Review Letters (2019). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.141301
Journal information: Physical Review Letters

Citation: This is how a 'fuzzy' universe may have looked (2019, October 3) retrieved 20 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-10-fuzzy-dark-disrupts-conventional.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.
742 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 03, 2019
Oddly enough, I find this hypothesis compelling...

Oct 03, 2019
Well WG, as cantdrive would say - You're becoming a Darkist.

Oct 03, 2019
Where has the light been?
Light reaching us in our "right now" timeframe left its point of origin, in some cases, billions of years ago. For the light frame, however the light left in the same instant it arrived here "and now". Where has that light been if it just now departed and arrived? How much more light is "still enroute"? and how much energy is that as yet unseen light carry? How can it have been there (in its frame still be there) be there at almost the beginning of time and just now seen by us and delivered its packet of energy to the here and now in our frame? How much of this "light" as yet undetected still in limbo in our viewpoint of space time?

Oct 03, 2019
well. if i understand the chain of events correctly?
the research in this article covers the period within the first half billion years after the BB

these simulated images are assumptions of the most probable view during the last half of that archaic period

based on the observed data collected & processed of today's Background Microwave remnants of that period

the brilliant jewels of stars & galaxies against the darkness of space
that enrapture us today
occurred after that early period of the Universe

what you have to comprehend? envision? appreciate?
is the multi-dimensional aspect of the vastness of the constantly expanding void
which dissipates the photons & other E/M radiations

& that SOL photons are scrambling to cross, not just Space but also Time

Oct 03, 2019
Dark Matter again? Only THIS time it's Dark 'Fuzzy' Matter, as opposed to cold and/or hot Dark Matter. Makes about as much sense as Hawking's hairy Black Holes.
There seems to be a sense of sheer desperation out there in the science labs amongst the well-funded researchers

"Shortly after the Big Bang, particles of dark matter would have clumped together in gravitational "halos," pulling surrounding gas into their cores, which over time cooled and condensed into the first galaxies."

I am astounded by the above quote. SHORTLY after the BB there was ONLY HYDROGEN GAS that filled up the space of the early Universe. Nothing else. There were NO particles of DM to clump together. There was NO MATTER OF ANY KIND ANYWHERE. There was only the Hydrogen gas which consisted of 1 electron and 1 proton. Chemical Matter did not exist UNTIL the Hydrogen gas began heating up to a fissionable temperature, whereupon the fusion process began to transmute H into He. From then on, chemistry began.

Oct 03, 2019
^^^^This is what happens when you learn science in lizard school!

Oct 03, 2019
What next, shape-shifting warm-blooded dark matter? What a dismal science this dark matter stuff is. I mean it's like let's just pretend insisting it was cold was just a multi-decade fashion statement.

Fuzzy galactic scaled waves it is now. Might want to check those granny-style General Relativity glasses.

Oct 03, 2019
For the first time, the team has simulated what early galaxy formation would have looked like if dark matter were "fuzzy," rather than cold or warm.

This is the "science" you get, when WARM scientists, knock back one too many COLD ones. It's just a MATTER of time, before everything turns FUZZY.

Oct 03, 2019
^^^^This is what happens when you learn science in lizard school!
says CastroVagina

Does that mean that you can offer a better explanation that proves the ACTUAL events that transpired at the time spoken of? Let's see it.

Oct 03, 2019
For the first time, the team has simulated what early galaxy formation would have looked like if dark matter were "fuzzy," rather than cold or warm.

This is the "science" you get, when WARM scientists, knock back one too many COLD ones. It's just a MATTER of time, before everything turns FUZZY.
says antigoracle

ROFLOL We all appreciated that one.

Oct 03, 2019
I recall that when I read that Sir Stephen Hawking declared that Black Holes have 'hair', I thought that, "surely, this must be some kind of joke of the bawdy British comedy type". I half expected that Benny Hill was the coauthor. But no, Sir Stephen had, indeed, meant every word of it. And others took it up and decided it must be true, for why else would Sir Stephen say it.
And now, it is declared that Dark Matter was fuzzy.

Oct 03, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 03, 2019
I recall that when I read that Sir Stephen Hawking declared that Black Holes have 'hair', I thought that, "surely, this must be some kind of joke of the bawdy British comedy type". I half expected that Benny Hill was the coauthor. But no, Sir Stephen had, indeed, meant every word of it. And others took it up and decided it must be true, for why else would Sir Stephen say it.
And now, it is declared that Dark Matter was fuzzy.


Mate? Get back in your vivarium, you clown. You haven't got a clue. Eejit.

Oct 03, 2019
Haw haw!

Oct 03, 2019
Fuzzy Pop-Cosmology just tickles so many fantasies.

Oct 03, 2019
Answers to many questions of 'dark' and visible matter and the associated balance of motion and gravitational energies can be found in the books, papers, seminars and other material of Suntola's Dynamic Universe replacement of Big Bang and unified GR/QM theories. They are collected e.g. at the web sites of physicsfoundations.org and lfs.fi and explained in my past posts in terms of the unified matrix and tensor calculus of loop inverse estimation theory. This new 'fast' math has industrial and technological applications in mathematical surveying sciences since late 1960's in photogrammetry and geodesy such as Apollo and other space science programs. They include today's digital 3/4-D image and GPS mapping technologies of 'Big Data' geographic information systems with the recent expansion of cell phone and computer technologies.

Oct 04, 2019
Fuzzy dark matter is what waves in wave particle duality. From the article:

> "Fuzzy dark matter is made up of particles that are so light that they act in a quantum, wave-like fashion, rather than as individual particles."

Fuzzy dark matter fills 'empty' space and is displaced by the particles of ordinary matter that exist in it and move through it, causing it to wave. Wave-particle duality is a moving particle *and* its associated wave in the fuzzy dark matter.

Oct 04, 2019
There are a lot of possible dark matter candidates, some more ad hoc than others.

These fuzzy dark matter models are very ad hoc, so unlikely, since their mass is picked to match the baryonic acoustic oscillations on one hand yet still be a ludicrously large Bose-Einstein condensate on the other [ https://arxiv.org...2684.pdf ].

Nice that they have modeled this, but nothing to be excited about yet.

Oct 04, 2019
Where has the light been? Light reaching us in our "right now" timeframe left its point of origin, in some cases, billions of years ago. For the light frame, however the light left in the same instant it arrived here "and now". Where has that light been if it just now departed and arrived? How much more light is "still enroute"? and how much energy is that as yet unseen light carry?


Good questions!

First, put aside the reference frame of massless particles. Since they don't experience time (but their field does) except around their near field emission and absorption (see EM antenna theory), it is meaningless to discuss it.

Second, the geometry of a spacetime observer is a bit odd since you see incoming light cones. When you go far back to the cosmic background there is a lot of effects. The stretching due to expansion means these photons have 1000 times longer wavelength and 1/1000 times less energy. The black body temperature was hot as Sun at 3000 K but is now 3 K.

Oct 04, 2019
- ctd -

That is why the once radiation energy dominated universe became first matter dominated (since radiation dilutes as 1/V^4 with expansion but matter as 1/V^3) but is now vacuum energy dominated (constant energy density at any expansion factor).

That is also why when you look out, you will see more and more redshifted photons until they seem to disappear at the "horizon". All of them that you can still meaningfully see are traveling towards you, currently for up to 14 billion years (and in 1 billion years up to 15 billion years and so on).

Third, LCDM models give you that when inflation ended and its potential energy was converted to Hot Big Bang radiation and matter, there was something like 10^9 photons for every matter particle.

The best guide to all this is Susskind's cosmological video lectures at Stanford.edu. At the level of detail you ask for, it is graduate level stuff.

Oct 04, 2019
- ctd -

Meanwhile, the visual image though should be of a shell of cosmic background photons that travels inwards towards you (currently for 14 billion years) until you see them hit your eye/telescope.

Hope that helps!

Oct 04, 2019
'since radiation dilutes as 1/V^4 with expansion but matter as 1/V^3'

This mistaken standard theory postulate would have lost 10% of the total energy (2 10^70 J) in space due to interpretation of Planck equation as 'intrinsic property of radiation propagating in space' vs. describing it as the emission/absorption process of DU without any energy loss while conserving the mass equivalence of radiation. See Suntola's DU book explanation in section 6.4.1

Oct 04, 2019
'since radiation dilutes as 1/V^4 with expansion but matter as 1/V^3'

This mistaken standard theory postulate would have lost 10% of the total energy (2 10^70 J) in space due to interpretation of Planck equation as 'intrinsic property of radiation propagating in space' vs. describing it as the emission/absorption process of DU without any energy loss while conserving the mass equivalence of radiation. See Suntola's DU book explanation in section 6.4.1


Suntola is a yoghurt. Not interested.

Oct 04, 2019
Notice that the total energy 2 10^70 J was diluted during the past travel to R4=13.8 B ly. The rest energy M C4^2 of constant total mass M in space was over 100 times stronger when C4 was over 10 times faster near CMB. But 10% of todays rest energy equivalence requires gulping quite many yoghurts - I don't hear any laughs from your buddy rr-Mousie skulking at PO building...

Oct 06, 2019
This 10% mistake of GR is minor as it attempts to reduce the energy balance error level down to 10^69 J of Big Bang fantasy vs. DU reduction down to zero. Or the local energy systems of GR have attempted to improve the LAST 69-70 decimals but being blinded to the most significant 68 FIRST decimals! Go big rr-mousie & JD or go home...

Oct 06, 2019
'In the case of fuzzy dark matter, instead of bright and dark points, it generates an alternating pattern of over-dense and under-dense concentrations of dark matter.'

At the quantum level, everything is going to be fuzzy. Due to the uncertainty principle. Vacuum fluctuations are fluctuations of the dark matter, unless anybody has a better explanation of fluctuations of what. It's the stuff that when energized produces particle/anti-particle pairs. That is energized by an e/m field. Like lightening. During baryogenesis and leptogenesis, as during lightening strikes, charged particles are accelerated at near the speed of light in opposite directions. So the antimatter universe may be out there, way out there, receding from our visible universe as we are being separated like beams of light traveling in opposite directions.

Oct 06, 2019
cont
And dark energy is the energy of what? You guessed it. Dark matter. Dark energy density not being distributed evenly, however, resulting in - you guessed it again - gravity. Strangely enough it appears that there are things in quantum physics, or at least in atomic physics, which appear constant, such as atomic clock time at specific energy densities (constant gravity, acceleration, etc.)

Oct 06, 2019
Speaking of time - what is time made of? Well time is a dimension at least per Minkowski. So what is a dimension made out of? A dimension is made out of measurements. Like space. Like the length of the king's thumb - an inch. Anyway you might as well combine your measurements and get spacetime. So Einstein stuck it to us with the idea of curved spacetime. It works that way in the mathematics but in the physical world what he is really talking about is variations in the dark energy density. Or so it appears.

Oct 06, 2019
And what, pray tell, is the source of the dark energy? Well the fuzziness of dark matter means it might be at position A at one time but a different position at another time. It just doesn't stay put. So all the dark matter vacuum fluctuations are competing for space. With this type of energy fluctuation going on it's not surprising that you get turbulence. Plenty of it to generate black holes, galaxies, whatever. And maybe with a strong enough e/m field, a new universe. So what is the source of it all? Uncertainty? Don't count it out.

Oct 06, 2019
-- Seeker2
".. a better explanation of fluctuations of what"
How about Time? [Yes; not an explanation]

"Speaking of.. - what is time made of?"
How about a field? [Yes; something has to generate it]

"Well time is a dimension at least per Minkowski."
Gravity as per Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, Einstein?

"A dimension is made out of measurements."
Important is your ruler, though and also, what measured it?. Infinite, an island's coastline can be shown to be.

"combine your measurements and get spacetime. So Einstein stuck it to us with.. curved spacetime."
He sure did. Putting the pieces together in case, the watchmaker understands how it ticks. Perhaps, open that case enclosing spacetime.

"in the physical world what he is really talking about is variations in the dark energy density."
Well, Einstein knew his theory was incomplete, so what would he say about yours?

Oct 06, 2019
"Well the fuzziness of dark matter means it might be at position A at one time but a different position at another time. It just doesn't stay put."
Would it still be, if Time stayed put?

// Sorry, blacked out, after the rest of your post.

"Don't count it out."
Absolutely, but beware of how, not counting it out, can surreptitiously lead to adding it in.
You know, like our "counting in, of gravity", lead to Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

Oct 07, 2019
Speaking of time - what is time made of? Well time is a dimension at least per Minkowski. So what is a dimension made out of? A dimension is made out of measurements. Like space. Like the length of the king's thumb - an inch. Anyway you might as well combine your measurements and get spacetime. So Einstein stuck it to us with the idea of curved spacetime. It works that way in the mathematics but in the physical world what he is really talking about is variations in the dark energy density. Or so it appears.
says Seeker2

Minkowski originated the myth that 'time' is a dimension. And he more or less 'forced' Einstein to use 'time' in his math equations, although there was never any evidence that 'time' had anything to do with the other 3 PHYSICAL dimensions or height, depth and width. If 'time' was another physical dimension like the first three, then and only then would it be detected as also having physical traits that can be quantified by measurement other than by a clock.

Oct 07, 2019
There was NO MATTER OF ANY KIND ANYWHERE
No need to shout. Everybody knows what a crackpot freak you are. Still pretending to be brit? Why?
ROFLOL We all appreciated that one
That being, pussytard and ALL her imaginary friends. Picture her stuffed animals in a circle...

Oct 07, 2019
And what, pray tell, is the source of the dark energy? Well the fuzziness of dark matter means it might be at position A at one time but a different position at another time. It just doesn't stay put. So all the dark matter vacuum fluctuations are competing for space. With this type of energy fluctuation going on it's not surprising that you get turbulence. Plenty of it to generate black holes, galaxies, whatever. And maybe with a strong enough e/m field, a new universe. So what is the source of it all? Uncertainty? Don't count it out.
says Seeker2

Black Holes are only generated in the event of a Star exploding and then collapsing into a BH. This is obviously the beginning of the Star's physical transformation that is proportional to its mass, fuel consumption, and gravitational strength and other factors. There is something else, but I won't get into that aspect of this transformation into a Black Hole.
But Dark Matter/Dark Energy is still conjecture and without evidence.

Oct 07, 2019
@Seeker2

When we refer to a dimension, it means its breadth and its physical "layout" or "field" as to what is easily detected and measured by instruments. If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions. If not easily detected, then it isn't a dimension -- it is a trick of the human imagination. The others know all this.
For these reasons, 'time' is not a dimension as it has no physical layout or field and cannot be detected by anything other than a clock/timepiece, which are merely inventions originating from the human mind.

Oct 07, 2019
"If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions."

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?

Using your logic how did you figure out the first three geometric dimensions if they have to relate to themselves to exist?

Your last post was just word salad. It makes no sense.

Oct 07, 2019
SEU
If you observe any sequence of events you are observing time.
Those events can even be thoughts in your IQ 60 brain.

Oct 07, 2019
SEU
If you observe any sequence of events you are observing time.
Those events can even be thoughts in your IQ 60 brain.


Not at all. The only thing that you are observing is "the sequence of Events" which is the passage(s) of what is taking place (or has taken place) during the 'flow' of events/actions. There is no way to 'observe' time. That is, unless you are psychotic and you see things which aren't there.
Events in the brain?? Perhaps you are referring to your DREAMS where it only seems that events are taking place. In your waking moments it is the "plans" that you are making, and observations of events that are being processed in your brain - what little there is left of it.

Oct 07, 2019
"If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions."

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?

Using your logic how did you figure out the first three geometric dimensions if they have to relate to themselves to exist?

Your last post was just word salad. It makes no sense.
says jimbooboo

Are you now in your cups that you are mistaking me for rrwillsj? Forgetful, are you? Obviously, you weren't paying close attention to what I actually said. So I will repeat it for you here --

"If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions. If not easily detected, then it isn't a dimension -- it is a trick of the human imagination."

Where did you get the idea that I had said that, 'the first three geometric dimensions if they have to relate to themselves to exist?'
You need to polish your comprehension skills, booboo.


Oct 07, 2019
I am not at all mistaking our for rrwillsj,

You said I quote

"If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions. If not easily detected, then it isn't a dimension -- it is a trick of the human imagination."

Did you not write that?

Oct 07, 2019
But we can in fact easily relate it to the three space dimensions. All we have to do is go fast enough, or make something go fast enough. Then we can see the dimensions change into one another, including into time.

Oct 07, 2019
I agree. No idea what SEU's issue is

Oct 07, 2019
I quote SEU:

"When we refer to a dimension, it means its breadth and its physical "layout" or "field" as to what is easily detected and measured by instruments. If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions. "

Those are its words not mine.

Oct 07, 2019
Experiments in fact show that both length contraction and time dilation occur for objects moving very fast relative to the observer. https://en.wikipe...lativity

A lot of them. This is no longer questioned and any theory that might replace special relativity must account for them. None has.

Oct 07, 2019
So, DaSchiebo, you don't think there is a better theory than special relativity, out there?
And, what if that theory proves time dilation is missing bits, would you still NO LONGER QUESTION it?

And, what if it turns out that better theory was found by questioning time dilation, would you still stick to your comment?

Oct 07, 2019
One thing's for sure, @tehgeighalgore, and that is you have no such alternative theory.

And it's a common misconception that Einstein's GRT "replaces" Newton's TUG. And Einstein's SRT "replaces" Newton's Three Laws of Motion. Both remain correct when speeds are low and gravity is not strong. We sent a spacecraft to Pluto using the Newtonian theories; Einsteinian theories were not needed. They wouldn't have added anything significant.

Oct 07, 2019
Who said anything about Newton? I asked 3 simple questions and off you went to ignorant land posting things you read somewhere as if it made you intelligent. Did, you even stop for a moment and think, for once, he did not mention Newton for a reason.
Now, answer my questions.

Oct 07, 2019
So show your alternative theory.

Without one, yes, I'm sticking with Einstein.

Oct 07, 2019
Not down with EUdiot Sparkly Unicorn®™ plasma fantasies. Feel free to step out of a tenth story window and prove me wrong anytime you like.

Oct 07, 2019
I am not at all mistaking our for rrwillsj,

You said I quote

"If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions. If not easily detected, then it isn't a dimension -- it is a trick of the human imagination."

Did you not write that?
says booboo

Word for word copied.

Oct 07, 2019
I am not at all mistaking our for rrwillsj,
says jimmy booboo

Then why did you call me "Willis"?
You asked about my quote:
""If a dimension exists, then it has to be easy to relate it to the first three geometric dimensions."

What you talkin' 'bout Willis?"

I saw MY quote, and I saw that you had called me "Willis".

Oct 07, 2019
Einstein and Newton say the same thing. Einstein just says you're going a nanometer per second faster or slower when you go splat on the sidewalk.

Oct 07, 2019
The concept of 'time' is only an experiment of the human MIND. And being of the MIND, it can't "Dilate" whether being observed or not. Many things are capable of dilating, including your eyes. Those are ALL physical things/objects. But concepts can't dilate, which means that 'time' is merely an "idea", a "thought" and a name to describe something to measure by clocks.

Oct 08, 2019
@xenubuttkissing_sperm_unit can't do nanometers.

Cranks can't count.

Oct 08, 2019
Foul comment from Schneib has been reported for abusive silly BS and inappropriate language. Some people just can't deal with the truth about the concept of 'time'.
Perhaps Schneib's husband can set him straight. LOL

Oct 08, 2019
What are you going to do in court when they arrest you for going 75 miles an hour?

Try to tell the judge there's no such thing as hours?

Oct 08, 2019
LOL Didn't you know that the speedometer is a type of clock that measures the speed of your vehicle? Similar to the increments of seconds on a clock, it measures the velocity at which the vehicle is moving in increments of MPH at its duration between Point A and Point B while the vehicle is moving. It is even more accurate when the Speed-Control is on.

Oct 08, 2019
The judge will either lock you up for contempt of court or direct you be held for psychiatric examination.

There is nowhere to run, there is nowhere to hide.

Oct 08, 2019
"Similar to the increments of seconds on a clock, it measures the velocity at which the vehicle is moving in increments of MPH at its duration between Point A and Point B while the vehicle is moving."

1. A speedometer measures "speed" not "velocity". A speedometers doesn't measure direction.
2. A speedometer measures "instantaneous speed" not "average speed" between two points.
3. A speedometer is not a type of clock.

https://www.expla...rks.html

I'm not being mean here. This is a suggestion for your future posts.
If you want to engage in scientific discussions terminology is key. And of course understanding the subject matter.

I think you should visit the above link and then re-write your post that I quoted above.
But before you post really think about what you are writing.

Just giving you some sound advice that will help you communicate better in the future.


Oct 08, 2019
Speedometers work from the revolutions of the wheels- specifically, they work from the revolutions of the driving wheels. With trolls like this it's best to keep one's assertions absolutely accurate. Keep in mind that these revolutions are associated with the engine RPMs by the gear ratio in the gear the vehicle is in, and are measured at the tailshaft. The calibration of speedometers is very carefully measured in the factory when the car is manufactured. All of this is controlled by law. Police cars and taxis have particularly accurate speedometers and considerable trouble is taken to ensure they remain that way.

Oct 08, 2019
"1. A speedometer measures "speed" not "velocity". A speedometers doesn't measure direction."
says booboo

Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this.

Oct 08, 2019
@jimmybobber
@Da Schnieb
@S_E_U.

All speeds/velocity measurements are made using some sort of appropriately designed 'clocking' system which relates the 'timing/rate' values to the DISTANCE ACROSS space/surface travelled by said system.

At NO STAGE does 'time' actually involve a 'dimensional entity' EXCEPT in the ABSTRACT measurement/clocking CONSTRUCT used to analyse/convey the system's MOTION/CHANGE in/across space/surface DISTANCES/DIRECTIONS.

All this has already been explained more than once, so WHY is NON-CAUSAL ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL 'time' term/concept STILL being incorrectly conflated/equated with ACTUAL REAL PHYSICALLY EFFECTIVE SPACE DIRECTION/DISTANCE dimensions?

'Time dilation' is merely a slowing/accelerating of the clocking/timing RATE measured due to the MOTION/GRAVITY a clock etc is experiencing, and NOT some 'extant time' physical 'thing'.

And the ONLY place space dimensions and 'time dimension' INTERCHANGE is IN EQUATIONS, NOT in REALITY.

Cheers. :)

Oct 08, 2019
@SEU
Speed is a scalar. Velocity is a vector.
It's as simple as that.


Oct 08, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@SEU
Speed is a scalar. Velocity is a vector.
It's as simple as that.

Yes that is already well known distinction; which S_E_U will now know also.

@SEU
"Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this."

Wow you really don't understand the difference between a scalar and a vector.

I am astonished that you actually posted that in a public forum.
Again, that is already well known distinction which I'm sure S_E_U will now know also.

But the SALIENT point was: the clocking/timing of MOTION/CHANGE in WHATEVER DIRECTION in/across SPACE. Please try to avoid conflating/distracting from the SALIENT point involved. Thanks. :)

Oct 08, 2019
@SEU
"Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this."

Wow you really don't understand the difference between a scalar and a vector.

I am astonished that you actually posted that in a public forum.


Oct 08, 2019
@jimmybobber.
@SEU
Speed is a scalar. Velocity is a vector.
It's as simple as that.

Yes that is already well known distinction; which S_E_U will now know also.

@SEU
"Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this."

Wow you really don't understand the difference between a scalar and a vector.

I am astonished that you actually posted that in a public forum.
Again, that is already well known distinction which I'm sure S_E_U will now know also.

But the SALIENT point was: the clocking/timing of MOTION/CHANGE in WHATEVER DIRECTION in/across SPACE. Please try to avoid conflating/distracting from the SALIENT point involved. Thanks. :)

Oct 08, 2019
Defend the SEU quote "Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this."


Oct 08, 2019
@jimmybobber.

Apologies for the duplication. :)

Defend the SEU quote "Velocity is speed; speed is velocity. Check your dictionary if you want to confirm this."
No need defending it; he was incorrect and has now learned the difference. :)

Please don't harp on his 'rookie error' while ignoring the SALIENT point made (yet again, as per my earlier post). Thanks. :)


Oct 08, 2019
You say he was incorrect yet he hasn't said he was incorrect.
As for your salient point. What is that point?


Oct 08, 2019
@jimmybobber.
You say he was incorrect yet he hasn't said he was incorrect.
As for your salient point. What is that point?
I will leave S_E_U to answer for his own errors. I am not interested in pedantic/semantic squabbles. It is the salient point that should be the focus, not 'point-scoring' noise. And that salient point was made, yet again, in my reminders/observations made to you, DS and S_E_U, in my earlier post above. :)

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