Another tool used by the scientists is the South Pole Neutrino Observatory, which tracks subatomic particles known as neutrinos, which, according to physicists, are created when dark matter passes through the Sun and interacts with protons.
Its power [LCH], they insist, could allow them to break-up electrons, quarks or neutrinos to uncover dark matter.
To track these phantom particles, physicists rely on several methods and tools. One is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) aboard the International Space Station (ISS), which captures gamma rays coming from collisions of dark matter particles.
Since dark matter is an unknown (maybe substance), the above statement seems to be conjecture.
Today, though, scientists believe that with the help of multi-billion-dollar tools, they are closer than ever to piercing the mystery—and the first clues may be unveiled just weeks from nowI see, just another arsenic life or life on the Mars story, the main purpose of which is just to judge the investments into expensive "tools" in they eyes of publics...;-) The secretiveness at its very beginning is typical and dual to announcing of real, the more unexpected or even unwanted breakthroughs, like the cold fusion.
..the dark matter particles are very heavy. It is one of the reasons we have made the LHC, not only to look for the Higgs bosonBut LHC completely failed regarding finding of WIMPS, the alleged particles of dark matter. When the theory failed at one device, why they expect its confirmation at another one?
The author of the press release doesn't really seem to understand what they wrote about.He even cannot know it because this finding was not yet published. It's just rumor about rumor.
Isn't it more likely to be a frame of reference problem.
It's been put to test hundreds, nay, thousands of times and performed perfectly at these scales.Whole the dark matter effect is a violation of general relativity in its classical sense. After all, the dark matter is usually detected just with its gravitational lensing, which CANNOT be attributed to observable matter with using of general relativity. The total amount of dark matter is then calculated as an equivalent amount of matter, which would do the same lensing with using of general relativity - but it cannot deny the fact, that the amount of dark matter lensing violating the relativity vastly exceeds the gravitational lensing of visible matter predicted with relativity (amount of visible matter is about 4% - whereas the dark matter accounts to 26% of total gravitational lensing inside of our Universe). So we can say safely, at the cosmological scale the relativity gets violated with dark matter in order of 5.000% - it's not just some minute deviation from relativity.
So we can say safely, at the cosmological scale the relativity gets violated just with dark matter in order of 1000%.
Why do you believe, Zwicky had to wait sixty years for his vindication?
considering ya are trying to tell us he HASN'T been vindicatedNope, I'm not trying to say it, because we have eighty years from this finding already. The dark matter was admitted with mainstream physics before twenty years already - but we can see, that fifty years standing period between announcing and acceptation of observations means nothing very much for conservative physics at the moment, when this finding CONTRADICTS some mainstream theory. As Planck once said, science advances one funeral at a time and the opponents of truth will never accept it, but they will simply die out.
if ya change gravitation, then somewhere ya have have to change electromagneticsAWT doesn't change existing theories, it explains them and gives them common geometric ground of emergent particle model. After all, the things in which we should change these theories were invented already before many years (scalar waves for example).
conservative physics at the moment, when this finding CONTRADICTS some mainstream theory.
Conservatism is a good quality in scienceWe are living in epoch when this conservatism went to far. AWT has a simple geometrical analogy for it: we are in situation of observer at the water surface who observes his neighborhood with using of water surface ripples. At the beginning these ripples are chaotic in the same way, like the observable reality in our neighborhood. But the turbulent character of water ripples gradually disappears and the ripples are spreading in well known regular circles. This is the domain of low-dimensional formal models, like the general relativity - so our observer may believe, this is the right paradigm for universal description of reality. But with increasing distance the water ripples will get scattered into underwater and the regular character of circles will disappear again. And from this moment the existing deterministic approach of mainstream physics becomes poorly conditioned and counterproductive, which leads into many false dismissals.
the findings of which were fueled with relatively cheap oil
The contemporary physics becomes employment driven and physicists are even less willing to risk their personal carriers than before
the ignorance of cold fusion has brought the physicists into even ignorance
either the cold fusion is ignorance or the physicists are ignorantCold fusion was revealed during twenty years of work of pair of scientists and published in standard scientific way. Now the rest of scientific community is supposed just to publish at least THE ATTEMPT for its replication. It's really that simple - until we get the attempt for replication, it's just the mainstream science, which remains ignorant here. Every finding - not just fundamental one - requires an independent replication, but the contemporary science has no institution for replication of findings built in. If such finding is incomfortable for the rest of scientific community just at least a bit, it may wait for its replication long time. The case of cold fusion is no exception from many other cases- it's significant only with its ratio of ignorance with scientists and importance for the rest of human civilization
Personally I'd like to see increased funding for finding the last Pink Unicorn that must be out there,, but mainstream science being what it isIf the scientists would be interested about cold fusion, many of them would indeed lose their jobs in existing areas of energetic research - but as a whole they would get a huge money for realization of their wildest basic research dreams. Currently they do behave rather like parasites of human society instead. This is not supposed to mean, they're lazy in general - actually many parasites are harmful just because of their frenetic activity.
the fact that our models of gravity do not match our observations.
Cold fusion was revealed during twenty years of work of pair of scientists and published in standard scientific way.
Now the rest of scientific community is supposed just to publish at least THE ATTEMPT for its replication.
It's really that simple
Every finding - not just fundamental one - requires an independent replication, but the contemporary science has no institution for replication of findings built in.
I still want more funding for Pink Unicorn research, but the mainstream zoologists wish to remain ignorantEven bigfoot is considered more seriously, than the cold fusion by now. Of course, without any research we will never prove it - which is exactly, what the mainstream physicists hope in.
It its certainly possible that they will discover something, but it its unlikely that they will find a substance which was made up to provide an explanation for the fact that our models of gravity do not match our observations.
Elegant and useful for identifying the stable of particles and forces that regulate our daily life, the Standard Model only tells part of the cosmic story.
For one thing, it does not explain gravity, although we know how to measure gravity and exploit it for our needs.
I agree with the prior posts. The author of the press release doesn't really seem to understand what they wrote about. It's like they are confused between the cosmological and quantum Standard Theories, amongst other oddities in the press release. The wording is very peculiar in several places.
As for the results, no matter what they are, since this is coming from MIT, it's highly likely that it isn't some BS alternative crackpot nonsense.
Almost everything you hear from MIT is solid. They do a very good job of quality control when it comes to publication.
There is a very simple PROOF CDM does not exist...
If anyone is interested I'll post the proof.
Gravity is an invented concept, IMHO it doesn't exist.This is quite interesting opinion applicable during activities like this one. But personally, I'd rather keep my private stance in this matter.
In fact, "gravitational lensing" does not account for observational facts, as per a quote from Evalyn Gates, astronomer at the University of Chicago, and the author of a book on the science of gravitational lensing, "Einstein's Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe
"The model of the lens outlines the (projected 2D) mass profile of the cluster – which doesn't seem to agree with numerical simulations for clusters, assuming a standard ΛCDM cosmology. The mass concentration in the center of the cluster is higher than predicted, a result that has also been found for other massive clusters studied with gravitational lensing."
Gravity is an invented concept,IMHO it doesn't exist.
It may be that dark matter is a superfluid type material that is so superfluid in it's behavior that it is the most superfluid thing of all(or close to itVacuum is apparently even more superfluous stuff - the dark matter is behaving like the fibers of viscous slime with compare to it (Bullet cluster, Gregory Laflamme instability, the rotational curves of stars and solar mantle which are rotating like single bodies, etc....).
The good doctor Gates is a fan of gravity.
Obviously, you can see that from the title of her book.
She has my total respect, having faithfully reported that observational data does not agree with the model for gravitational lensing.
All more recent findings also agree that there is something wrong with gravitational lensing, or our fundamental model of the universe, e.g
P.S. I really do have a graduate degree from a very prestigious university. Honest. And I really do have a very good position at a major university. No, I'm not a tenured professor, but it's a good position.
Someone keeps baiting me with something to the effect "anonymous lying coward" or some such. Only a really stupid person would engage in these shenanigans with their real name, address, and personal information.
The one where we learned to discuss such deep and intricate topics like forces, time, and gravity. (And to insult...
When I asked Q-Star which institution he had "graduated" from, he repliedThe one where we learned to discuss such deep and intricate topics like forces, time, and gravity. (And to insult...
and that he convened with "three Noble Laureates" while he was there
P.S. Me? Caltech, class of '79,,,,, Ph.D. Caltech '84, what about ya?
I am starting to feel sorry for him, do you think we should lay off the jibes?
What a joke! You cannot even spell "you"!
Let us for now lay off and give him the opportunity to behave and argue like a scientist is supposed to do (not that many mainstream scientists do); and see what happens.
Of course, he has no choice now, he obviously cannot cut it in the big wide world outside academia as you and I have done.
@ johan,,,
How does it feel to be included in the ranks of Zephyr, Natello, Yash17, cantdrive, et al. You and the "there is not such thing as gravity" boyo?
I am willing to discuss science with anybody no matter how scientifically illiterate he/she is. What I do expect in return is honesty and integrity. People who post under different aliases while claiming that they are experts in physics are all beneath contempt.
Reg Mundy is doing this.
I will only be in a position to criticize Reg Mundy, after I have studied in FULL what he has written.
How often do ya check your pm's? From a week ago? I post under one name.
No he is not, we've asked him dozens of times to explain his crank theory of "there is no such thing as gravity",,, he's refused to discuss it, every time he was asked.
@Q-Rats
Strange list of my postings! I am not EnricBerneda, RealityCheck, WhydeningGyre, AntonKole or ALV.
I will send johan my book, third edition, as he missed the free issues originally provided. It should give him much amusement.
There is an experiment in it which might get you that elusive tenured professor post you crave if you are quick!
Let us for now lay off and give him the opportunity to behave and argue like a scientist is supposed to do ....and see what happens.
And if you criticize you should not use an alias. If you consider yourself a "peer" who can contribute, there is no need to hide behind anonymity.
Maybe you have to read his whole thesis to understand why he argues in this manner. I cannot argue this aspect and have therefore not made any posts on his science,,
I am going to close with a stupid question: Did Einstein not also claim that there is not a force of gravity but only free motion within a curved space?
Well, now we know what happens - he continues as before,,
Blah, Blah, Blah, I have nothing to say. Blah, Blah, Blah.
Hmmm, send me a free copy, and I'll give it go. Naaa, on second thought, don't bother, it would probably have me dismissed.
@Q-Prat/anti-al/brt/Quinn/etc.Hmmm, send me a free copy, and I'll give it go. Naaa, on second thought, don't bother, it would probably have me dismissed.
Blah, Blah, Blah I'm really smart, Blah, Blah, Blah.
Can't argue with that.
@Q-Stir/antialioop/VendicarE/brt/Quinn/et al
Blah, Blah, Blah, Na, Na, Na, Na, Na, Blah, Blah, Blah.
Couldn't have said it better Boyo, keep up the good work.
vacuum-mechanics
Feb 18, 2013While waiting for the result, maybe this physical view of the dark matter/energy could help us to visualize one possible idea…
http://www.vacuum...14〈=en