So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?
The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations
We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant
Accept it or replace it.If you just take it out of the models, then you have raised many more and more difficult questions than dark matter resolves.
I see no reason why more exploration into problems like these;
1, Missing Constant or variable.
2, Incomplete/over-simplified computer modelling, resulting in faulty conclusions.
3, Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave.
So 1 fails the test of observation.
2. There are no better explanations for the phenomena.
So 3 fails because you are suggesting replacing something with it's self.
Dark Matter is a THEORY which claims that the unknown entity is a massless, intangible particle.
Dark Energy claims that it's respective unknown is in fact "Joules,"**
My mistake, it's not your fault. Someone has lied to you about what "dark matter" is claimed to be by astrophysicists and cosmologists. And "dark energy" too. Now that you know that is wrong, you might wish to go do some reading so you will at least be arguing against what the prevailing view actually is instead of what it is not.
Dark Energy is the theory describing the supposed substance which is causing the acceleration of the universe's expansion. If you calculate what the units ought to be for that, you'll find I'm correct.
Q-star:
You are correct in that dark matter and dark energy are not theories, even though they are called such.You are deviating from the scientific community, btw.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are actually hypothesis.
You see, a theory requires a substantial evidence which supports that hypothesis, and fits that hypothesis better than alternatives.
Since attempts to directly detect Dark Matter as an "unknown, massive, intangible particle," have all failed, then the hypothesis is not yet deserving of promotion to actual theory.
You don't have evidence of this (or these) particles.The only thing you have evidence for is an unknown form (or quantity) of attraction.
I have not said that anything at all could be the cause. I'm just pointing out that if you go around with blinders on and only look for what some small class of theories or hypothesis suggests, you might miss the real truth.
Science is a sub-set of philosophy, not a super-set.
Get it straight.
All that other stuff you wrote is not science. It's saying that "Anything is possible, so anything is just as likely as anything else and everything equally correct and equally wrong depending on WHO is presenting without regard to the substance of what they base their presentation on."
Oh, okay. Go
NO, I did not.
I suggested there might be unknown solutions to relativity or QM, or string theory, which do not fall into the realm of particles and waves only.
Why should all known universes, or all possible universes, be limited to particles and waves? If such is the case, can you prove it firstly through the mathematics of known physics, but also through experiment?
supposing it's determined to be non-falsifiable, okay, but then we have a problem. The problem with non-falsiable hypothesis is that they MAY be true, we just don't know how to prove it.
While that may not meet the criteria of the scientific method, as you well know, that by itself doesn't prove the statement wrong
But for now, you don't have anything..
Okay, got it.
Now ya know how I feel when those people over in the zoology dept say the things they say to me for suggesting a dedicated search for the last extant unicorn before it's too late. They can never tell me why it is impossible to find it, only that it would be fruitless.
By the way,String Theory (also more correctly labelled hypothesis,) proposes non-particle, non-wave entities, such as Branes, which are these extended geometric surfaces.
the reason some physicists favor higher dimensional geometry is because the discrepancies between gravity and the other forces goes away in some of these models. Does that make the model true, or even headed in the right direction? Maybe yes, maybe no...
The key difference is String theory puts these objects outside and between universes, while I say what the heck, if such a thing can (or might) exist outside the universe, why can't such a thing exist inside the universe?
Once you make one leap, why not make the other? The second hypothesis, mine, is actually easier to test than theirs, or at least it should be.
So I'd say the missing entity is more like a new sub-species of horse, rather than a unicorn. Now maybe the sub-species is something we already know and has been misidentified or misunderstood, or maybe the sub-species is in fact something new. We won't know till we find it.
String "theories" is still the "hot" item only in the popular press.It has ended up running into the brick wall of falsifiability. No progress for a decade.Young grad students aren't doing it,
Ah ha! You mean like a new sub-species of a massive particle left over from the big bang? Can't have it both ways. Either you hunt for unicorns, or you hunt for something whose properties are consistent with equines. We can hunt for some new physics which no evidence or observation infers, or we can hunt for something that is strongly inferred by observation.
You realize you just made my argument for me, right?
yet people are quick to mock things which are not falsifiable, and which are not ridiculous or fairy tale type inconceivable or nearly inconceivable BS.
You might as well call it "god of the gaps".
ALL the evidence points to dark matter, it doesn't ALL point to something else.
That is why so many people are working on it, and not so much string theories.
You observe a speed discrepancy with respect to the (calculated) gravity of known mass (a calculation which cannot actually be done properly since the n-body is too complicated for any computer,) so you conclude that there must be hidden, invisible matter which almost never interacts through other forces.
A gargantuan event like the big bang would have no trouble opening dimensional portals into which the undiscovered matter was thrown.
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?
The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations
I see no reason why more exploration into problems like these;
1, Missing Constant or variable.
2, Incomplete/over-simplified computer modelling, resulting in faulty conclusions.
3, Unknown force and/or unknown carrier entity: neither particle nor wave.
1. Would make all the science based on Newton and Einstein give us wrong answers. From the flight of projectiles here on earth to the orbits of the planets. Instead of saying Newton and Einstein are wrong, you should show what works better. So 1 fails the test of observation.
The WIMPs are believed to be very massive, well distinguished and stable. IMO such a WIMPs don't exist - the dark matter is a product of density fluctuations of vacuum, which manifest itself as a CMBR noise or scalar waves of Nicola Tesla and they're of low mass, temporal and very fuzzy in their properties. In addition, the WIMPs are based on SUSY, which has been already disproved in LHC experiments. The theory which failed in one set of observations wouldn't work well in another ones.
Zeph, now you know as well as anyone that Tesla's scalar waves have taken their place beside Lodge's aether in the "Museum Of Failed Physics And Ideas That Didn't Pan Out". When are you going to leave the 19th century physics to rest in peace and come into the 21st century? 21st century science is fun and exciting, you should try it.So you claim that longitudinal waves like sound don't exist? Tesla invented 60% of what you use every day. Nice to see you think that's "archaic"
there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.Please explain how attractive forces work
Zeph, now you know as well as anyone that Tesla's scalar waves have taken their place beside Lodge's aether in the "Museum Of Failed Physics And Ideas That Didn't Pan Out". When are you going to leave the 19th century physics to rest in peace and come into the 21st century? 21st century science is fun and exciting, you should try it.So you claim that longitudinal waves like sound don't exist? Tesla invented 60% of what you use every day. Nice to see you think that's "archaic"
there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.Please explain how attractive forces work
And if it clumps via gravitational forces why haven't we seen for example a galaxy gravitationally distorted by something vast and unseen of galactic mass or greater? For example, we see many galaxies distorted by gravitational interaction with other nearby or colliding visible galaxies of baryonic matter.
2) It is extremely diffuse, a dozen orders of magnitude less dense than air, several dozen orders of magnitude less dense than the intergalactic medium.
DUH! Thank you Q-Star for your excellent explanation of how WIMPS interact and why they don't "clump". Conservation of momentum with no way of interacting other than the weak force of inter particle mutual gravity. OR smashing into an occasional xenon nucleus in the detector!
And still nobody mentions Helium.
Bunch of stuff that just is not true,,,,,,,,,
Mark my words, some day all the denialists will eat their words. Dark Matter is Helium.
Why is a massive particle so hard to believe? What would you propose? What would work better?
Quantum physics? WIMP works.
Thermodynamics? WIMP works
General relativity? WIMP works.
Newtonian mechanics? WIMP works.
Observational astrophysics? WIMP works..
Electromagnetics? WIMP works.
What model do you suggest that works as well?
The article headline is misleading. Without reading further, it seems to postulate that DM has been found. But it is the opposite. There is not a trace of DM anywhere.
We need to completely rethink our science when considering cosmic proportions.
@Q-Stir
Why is a massive particle so hard to believe? What would you propose? What would work better?
Quantum physics? WIMP works.
Thermodynamics? WIMP works
General relativity? WIMP works.
Newtonian mechanics? WIMP works.
Observational astrophysics? WIMP works..
Electromagnetics? WIMP works.
What model do you suggest that works as well?
If you had bothered to read some of the books you are so fond of denigrating you would be aware of at least one model that works BETTER!
Face it, Quinn, there ain't no Dark Matter, the only evidence for it is provided by GRAVITY, which itself does not exist as a force.
I was able to shoot holes in the Sigma relationship of galaxy mass and SMBH mass after just a few minutes of examining it, by observing that the Milky Way does not at all obey that relationship, and is off by 3 orders of magnitudeLrrkrr your opinion of your thinking abilities is off by 3 orders of magnitude. At least. Embarrassing really. You meant to say massless because you weren't aware that WIMPs were massive until you were told.
there ain't no Dark Matter, the only evidence for it is provided by GRAVITY, which itself does not exist as a force
Okay, I'll face it. Now what? And how are the books sales going?
Okay, I'll face it. Now what? And how are the books sales going?
@Q-Star
if any of his explanations here (found at: http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of his book, then sales are not going well... not surprising given the nature of the writing as he has YET to provide empirical data to support his arguments for the lack of gravity and that an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.
I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before...
It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions.
@Q-Star
yeah... that is what I figured.
You REALLY SHOULD review it on-line at amazon, and make sure you add in there your education and expertise which lends weight to the review. Given that he is so adamant about pushing such garbage here, it should be known to anyone who buys the book that it is the equivalent of purchasing someone else's used TP in the hope of finding a gold tooth!
The professors where my daughter go to school are using his arguments here to show how pseudosciences attempt their obfuscations and how any stupidity can be published and called science given the lack of public awareness/comprehension of the sciencesThis article just tore apart your beloved dark matter. Your over-compensation is obvious
This article just tore apart your beloved dark matter. Your over-compensation is obvious
interact so rarely with other forms of matter, they generally pass right through the earth and everything on it without anyone knowing it
The LUX is designed to detect those rare occasions when a WIMP does interact with other forms of matter
the scientists use neutrons as a stand-in for WIMPs
Along with the low-mass wimps, the first 90-day run of LUX ruled out a wide swath of possibilities for what dark matter could be made of.
"There are literally thousands of models of particle physics lying bloodied in the gutter," Gaitskell said
@Q-star: A vacuum is superior to Helium for that purpose, but Helium has the characteristics that make it favorable for it too. The vacuum doesn't itself permit light propagation, that is the task of the particles in the transmitting medium, in this case the glass to glass particles. Helium does the trick because it displaces any contaminating elements between the lenses, and the glass to glass principle works here too, since Helium is not involved in absorption/emission scenario of photonic wave propagation. You have answered your own questions, in a way.
I still maintain that Helium is the best candidate for DM, because the sheer volume of it in space has the gravitational potential that the investigators are searching for.
@Q-Star
if any of his explanations here (found at: http://phys.org/n...ong.html ) are any indication of his book, then sales are not going well... not surprising given the nature of the writing as he has YET to provide empirical data to support his arguments for the lack of gravity and that an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.
I'll pass on clicking your link,I'm sure I've seen it all before. Reg & I have a history, an unpleasant history. He's a moron. His book is moronic babbling. The stuff you see here at physorg? That's what you get when you buy the book. Here in the office we took up a collection and purchased the ebook version.
It's mostly rambling on about "Reg & his growth & path to what he is today & blah, blah, blah." The science in it is ALL misconceptions
an undergrad destroyed his arguments using high school physics/math arguments.
@Cap'n Grumpy...fixed
Hi, could you please let us know... neutrons
there was no Big bang, physics is full of fake forces, electricity is a joke. Good we got the experts working on it right here.
Please explain how attractive forces work
Perhaps you could name ONE misconception and logically disprove it?
So far we know by calculation that the gravity field of our sun is almost exactly what we expect if it were 100% baryonic matter, that is to say there is no dark matter component to its mass. If it should be discovered this is the case for every star in our galaxy, discussions about the "dark matter" hypotheses will undergo a crises stage.
So you can't explain attractive forces, yet you claim some wisdom about basic physics? Don't you agree that makes YOU the crackpot? You can't even describe a reproducible explanation for something so elementary. Asking questions is the basis of science, not being a pompous assPlease explain how attractive forces workI was just reciting some crackpot comments here in a semi-sarcastic manner.
I was able to understand why you could not explain orbits.
@Cap'n GrumpyI was able to understand why you could not explain orbits.
I can explain orbits just fine, thank you. Its just that your brain can't grasp or visualise the explanation. As its laid out in the book, perhaps Q-Stir would logically dismember it for you, and save you reading it and getting a headache.
I can explain orbits just fine, thank you. Its just that your brain can't grasp or visualise the explanation
I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book
you should understand why I don't try to explain a whole philosophy here which needs to cover "orbits" blah blah blah.
There is more mass in the Earth, therefore more acceleration at its surface. But remember, the number of atoms remains the same
gravity didn't exist until Newton invented it!
What about all neutrinos that were ever produced in subnuclear an nuclear processes?
Regarding DM, my personal outsider opinion ... because it sounds cooler than telling the large public
I'm very much annoyed by media material about science which are not clearly verified by experts who are willing and given the responsibility of checking the correctness of the content.
I can't dismember what's not in there. To predict orbits ya need stuff that ties mass, distances, times, speeds and motion together. None of that is in there. You can visualize all ya want, but ya can't get a satellite into the proper orbit without that fun stuff, a way to figure out exactly where it's going to be in the next few minutes as it applies to the thing's mass and the mass of the thing it's to go around.
Other than that, it's very useful and is sure to change the world of physics as we know it.
So if you were to write a volume II, and promise that ya would include that sort of stuff, I might even buy that one too.
@Captain Stumpy: Thanks, I've already learnt enough about neutrons in school. I was just pointing the fact that it's unusual to write "low mass neutrons" unless one explains what low means... My other point is that, as a junior scientist, I'm very much annoyed by media materialYoure a 'junior scientist' and you don't know how to educate yourself? Is this like a junior birdman then?
@Q-Stir
I can't dismember what's not in there. To predict orbits ya need stuff that ties mass, distances, times, speeds and motion together. None of that is in there. You can visualize all ya want, but ya can't get a satellite into the proper orbit without that fun stuff, a way to figure out exactly where it's going to be in the next few minutes as it applies to the thing's mass and the mass of the thing it's to go around.
Other than that, it's very useful and is sure to change the world of physics as we know it.
So if you were to write a volume II, and promise that ya would include that sort of stuff, I might even buy that one too.
The explanation for elliptical orbits is in Third Edition, which one did you buy?
The explanation for elliptical orbits is in Third Edition, which one did you buy?
That's the one, but it lacks any means of computing the dynamics. It is a word salad "way of looking at it". So for the purpose of predicting, measuring, and relating, it's not very useful. Even without than that, it's sure to earn you a Nobel.
@Q-Stir
Can you compute the dynamics? Suggest a method? If you can, you will get full credit, and that Nobel could be yours!
Even that coveted tenured professorship, perhaps!
We use it between lens elements on microscopes and telescopes so I'm pretty it transmits.It transmits that you're pretty to YOU. But how can we detect it spectroscopically if there are no spectral emission or absorption data from Helium to support your wild claim? We are looking for something that we cannot see right? Anybody who points to a diagram and claims that it represents that data is a pseudo-scientist, to be sure. I repeat, Helium is inert to the propagation of visible light waves in the optical spectrum. If you disagree, then you are not qualified to post comments on the subject. (I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)
It transmits that you're pretty to YOU. But how can we detect it spectroscopically if there are no spectral emission or absorption data from Helium to support your wild claim?
I repeat, Helium is inert to the propagation of visible light waves in the optical spectrum. If you disagree, then you are not qualified to post comments on the subject. (I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)
(I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)
Q-Star I guess just a short for 'chem inert' under normal (Earth) conditions (Neon being no. 1 inert) but you knew anyway but does Reg?
(I'm throwing out plenty of bait here - I must be bored, but I am still right)
@Q-Star
After many exchanges with you over a long period, you suddenly shut up when you had read the book, presumably because you could not refute the contents. From then on, you would see our universe in a different light, not with your old certainties.
You are now out of your comfort zone, and standing in the path of the maelstrom with me. You know that current theories fail to explain many facets of our universe.
You now know there are alternative philosophies equally valid with Newton/Einstein subject to exactly the same facts and proof of validity, but without "inventing" gravity,
You now know there are alternative philosophies equally valid with Newton/Einstein subject to exactly the same facts and proof of validity, but without "inventing" gravity,
Until ya add a practical framework, that's all it is, philosophy, but it's not useful in the progress of science. Newton's & Einstein's inventions are useful. Yours? Not so much.
So how can a WIMP account for 80% missing gravitation force (mass) ?
The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations
We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant
@Reg Mundy...sorry but you seem to be a bit late and since you've been working on it '...long ago...' maybe it's time to call it 'a day'.
@Mimath224
Interesting...you are saying you have seen the theories in the book previously. Would you mind telling me where?
matt_roadhouse
Feb 20, 2014The very definition of ' not interacting ' would make it inert in gravitational calculations
We still don't even understand Gravity at the deepest level. I still feel adding an extra 80% to the universe's mass is a cop-out and nothing more to fix a broken equation/constant