MATTER MINER: Dozens of detectors like this one make up the CDMS experiment, an underground monitor of possible dark matter signals.
Image: CDMS
-
Gravity's Engines
We’ve long understood black holes to be the points at which the universe as we know it comes to an end. Often billions of times more massive than the Sun, they...
Read More »
A hotly anticipated announcement regarding a possible signature of dark matter delivered some grist for the physics mill Thursday but failed to produce the blockbuster result some had predicted. In a Webcast talk from Stanford University, Jodi Cooley, a particle physicist at Southern Methodist University, presented the latest results from the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search 2 (CDMS-2), a series of detectors buried deep underground in a former iron mine in northern Minnesota. (The first CDMS experiment was located at Stanford, much closer to the surface.) CDMS-2, she said, detected two signals that fit the bill for the passage of dark matter particles, but other possibilities could not be ruled out.
Dark matter is thought to make up roughly a quarter of the universe but has never been directly observed. In present-day estimates of the universe's makeup, ordinary atoms (such as those we detect as the visible universe) contribute only about 5 percent; the bulk of the cosmos takes the form of so-called dark energy, under whose influence the universe is expanding at an increasing clip. Dark matter's presence has for decades been inferred from its gravitational effects on large-scale structures such as galaxy clusters, but because it does not interact much with ordinary matter and does not emit or absorb light—hence the "dark" moniker—it has so far proved impossible to observe firsthand.
Many models of dark matter hold that the mysterious stuff comes in the form of weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs—that is, particles that interact via the weak nuclear force in addition to gravity. (The weak force, which acts only over very short distances, is the force of nature responsible for radioactive decay, among other phenomena.) CDMS-2, 780 meters below ground in Minnesota's Soudan Underground Laboratory, is on the lookout for such WIMPS. The experiment monitors germanium detectors, cooled to a fraction of a degree above absolute zero, for subtle vibration and ionization effects that would be produced by WIMPs colliding with germanium nuclei.
The detectors are shielded from contaminating radiation by several layers of insulation. One of those layers is 4.5 centimeters of lead salvaged from the ballast of a centuries-old French shipwreck, whose age ensures that most of the potentially contaminating radiation from the decay of unstable lead isotopes is long gone. CDMS-2's underground location further insulates the experiment from cosmic rays and other background radiation sources.
Even so, Cooley and her colleagues calculated that the detectors could be expected to pick up approximately 0.5 WIMP-mimicking background events in the course of acquiring the newly unveiled CDMS-2 data set, a run that spanned 2007 and 2008. Even with a more cautious look at background sources, the CDMS team came to an estimated background contribution of 0.8 event. Tantalizingly, the detectors registered two events that looked like WIMPs—more than would be expected from background noise. What is more, Cooley noted, "the two events occurred during a time of nearly ideal detector performance." And they were registered in different months by different detectors.
Nevertheless, the CDMS collaboration cautions that there was a roughly 25 percent chance of seeing two background events. "Our results cannot be interpreted as significant evidence for WIMP interactions," Cooley said. Still, she added, the team "cannot reject either as a signal." In a summary of results released by the CDMS team Thursday (pdf), the researchers noted that the detectors would have needed to register five events to present a rock-solid case for dark matter detection.
Some will no doubt find the CDMS-2 announcement disappointing. Rumors had roiled the blogosphere since Resonaances, a particle theory blog, inaccurately reported December 7 that the CDMS collaboration would publish its results in the journal Nature, which would hint at a discovery with broad appeal and acceptance beyond the particle-physics community. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.)
SuperCDMS, which will involve more detectors and hence more material for WIMPs to bump into, is already taking shape at Soudan and may reach full deployment by summer 2010, the collaboration noted. The unambiguous direct detection of dark matter, one of the biggest prizes in physics, may still be up for grabs when it does.
See what we're tweeting about
43 Comments
Add CommentShould not this artical make mention of another Scientific American artical from a few weeks back that indicated that theoretical dark matter itself is in question and can possibly be explained away by Petr Horava's new quantum theroy that involves high energy gravitons splitting time from space creating the illusion of dark matter where there atually is none. That they are recieving results that are not defining might have something to do with this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn order to understand the significance of this finding it would be necessary to calculate the posterior probability of the events being due to background. To do this using Bayes theorem it is necessary to have an estimate of the prior probability of an event due to dark matter. Without this information, no matter how low the probability of an event due to background, there is no valid way of deciding whether the results are significant. There is no mention in the article of an estimated probability of detecting dark matter in the experiment. Is such an estimate available?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is worth noting that almost every report of this in the mainstream media confuses the prior and posterior probabilities of the event being due to background.
After forty years, the methods used to infer of dark matter should be much more carefully reexamined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDark Matter as Gravitational Estimation Error
Dark Matter represents compensatory mass intended to resolve discrepancies between the predicted and observed gravitational affects of very large scale mass configurations. For nearly forty years it has been presumed that, since standardized estimation methods had been rigorously employed, these discrepancies could only have occurred if either undetected mass was present or proven gravitational theories are wrong. Established gravitational theories do have fundamental shortcomings: most critically, their basic equations correctly describe its affects only for discrete objects, each a precisely spherically symmetrical distribution of mass. Reported observations of large scale gravitational anomalies result from the application of these simplistic equations to relatively proximal, disperse, non-spherically symmetrical aggregations of massive objects.
In the still most commonly used gravitation of classical mechanics, derived from planetary motions within our Solar system, Newton used his Shell theorem to show that a discrete body containing an exactly spherically symmetrical distribution of mass, generally representing planets and stars, is mathematically equivalent to one of the two point-masses specified for his Inverse-square law of Universal Gravitation.
At sufficient distance, attraction from an object of any dimensions effectively resolves to a point. However, an object such as a local galaxy that would appear in the sky from an attraction partner to occupy more than a few arc degrees must present a spherically symmetrical mass for the gravitational equation to produce accurate results. Representing relatively proximal non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass as a single point-mass is mathematically invalid, producing erroneous results. If the complete instructions for using this conveniently simple equation were strictly adhered to, these configurations of disperse masses would require much more complex estimation methods, but results should much more closely approximate the observed affects. Please confirm for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law
The separation distance specified by this law is not the separation from the surfaces of any two virtual objects, but the separation of the virtual point-masses at the centers of two spherically symmetrical discrete objects of mass. This could be critical for any qualifying large scale objects, since their radial distances could be significant in relation to object separation distance.
The standard equation generally works well for planets and stars, but at extreme proximities even their minor deviations from spherical symmetry introduce significant estimation errors, as evidenced by its inability to correctly predict the orbit of Mercury around the Sun or the exact trajectories of spacecraft passing near planets. This effect of proximity is exceeded only by internal attractions, such as those of a discrete object within a disperse aggregation of massive objects. In these conditions the diverse directionality of actual, multiple, discrete attractions becomes highly significant in determining actual gravitational affects.
The requirement for additional, undetected, mass became effectively established within the astrophysics community with the identification of the Galaxy Rotation Problem in the early 1970s. The Dark Matter hypothesis was proposed to most simply satisfy that requirement.
Astrophysicists had expected that the orbital velocities of stars within spiral galaxies would diminish at increasing distances from the galactic center, just like the planets in our Solar system. Considering the obvious significant differences in their relative spatial distribution of mass for these disparate gravitational systems, this expectation seems to have been based more on familiarity with the affects of gravitation within our own Solar system than any specific knowledge of its affects within other varied, more complex configurations of mass distributions.
Our Solar system can be characterized as a highly centralized, sparsely populated gravitational system containing few significant orbital objects, each occupying its own dedicated orbital path in relative isolation. Gravitational affects are dominated by the central Sun, which contains nearly 99.8% of total system mass. Even when considering the orbits of irregularly shaped comets around the Sun, or moons around a planet, the contribution of non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass to gravitational attractions is proportionately insignificant. Only when attractions between proximal pairs of irregularly shaped asteroids are considered in isolation do the affects of non-spherically symmetrical mass distributions become significant in determining gravitational affects within our Solar system.
Surprising astrophysicists, observations of the M31 spiral galaxy clearly indicated that the orbital velocities of stars within the galactic disc remained relatively constant regardless of distance, as though the entire galactic disc was a rotating loosely bound solid mass. It seemed that some enormous additional, undetected galactic mass was required to produce the observed peripheral orbital velocities. Expected orbital velocities had been determined based solely on the estimated attraction between each subject star and the periphery of the galactic bulge, a generally elliptical aggregation of stars near the galactic center.
It is now known that stars within the galactic bulge independently orbit a central supermassive black hole at comparatively extreme velocities. The proximal galactic bulge, a dynamic aggregation of many billions of stars, cannot be correctly considered as a discrete, singular object for gravitational estimation purposes, as there is typically no definitive spatial boundary between the central bulge and the planar disc of spiral galaxies.
The standard estimation method used to determine the presumedly independent orbital velocities of stars within the galactic disc around the presumedly dominating galactic bulge completely ignored their many, more significant, multidirectional attractions to the much nearer neighboring stars within the disc. Unlike the highly centralized mass of our Solar system, a significant percentage of the enormous, so-called visible mass of a spiral galaxy is generally distributed throughout its vast galactic disc, especially within their namesake spiral structures, which can contain many billions of discrete massive objects.
The standard estimation method employed predicted the orbital velocities of stars within the galactic disc as though they were each independently orbiting a dominant central galactic bulge, just like planets orbiting the Sun. This method completely ignored their many, more significant, multidirectional attractions to the much nearer neighboring stars within the disc. Unlike the highly centralized mass of our Solar system, a significant percentage of the enormous, so-called visible mass of a spiral galaxy is generally distributed throughout its vast galactic disc, especially within their namesake spiral structures, which can contain many billions of discrete massive objects.
The existence of persistent spiral structures within galaxies provides direct evidence of their robust local gravitational bindings, in addition to any common, generally centralized, attraction to collective galactic mass. Their curvature, extending throughout the breadth of the galactic disc, indicates that these local bindings are by themselves sufficient to withstand galactic rotational forces, preventing expulsion of peripheral stars without requiring any additional mass provided by external galactic dark matter. More complete evaluation of local and regional intragalactic gravitational affects should eliminate any requirement for compensatory galactic dark matter.
Rather than the highly centralized mass planetary system model, larger scale aggregations of massive objects represent a more loosely bound distributed gravitational model, forming networks of vectored attractions among peer masses, producing a structure analogous to a loosely woven fabric. While the effects of gravitation may tend to form optimally stable spherical structures at all scales, more loosely bound larger scale structures are susceptible to permutational influences, most often producing non-spherical structures.
While the affects of gravitation are identical at all scales, equations presuming spherical symmetry cannot be universally successful for large scale massive structures. As mathematically described, the law of Universal Gravitation is most directly applicable to centralized planetary orbital systems and binary star pairs. Using the physics of Classical Mechanics, non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass require vectored solution for many if not all discrete points of actual gravitational attraction.
That gravitation is not completely described by the simple equations of either classical mechanics or general relativity is evidenced by the special conditions presented by the relatively dense clouds of molecular gases known as stellar nurseries. These still disperse clouds contain sufficient mass to spawn many massive stars without significant depletion, yet they do not curve spacetime sufficiently to effectively attract nearby stars. Moreover, the imbedded stars that they produce do not rapidly orbit each other, despite their relative proximities.
This indicates that disperse gaseous masses do not appear to produce the gravitational affects required of dark matter, commonly envisioned as an enormous amorphous mass encapsulating galaxies. This may be understood in terms of the multidirectional local attractions gaseous masses can have for their embedded stars, likely producing the opposite effect expected of dark matter.
The principle distinctions between discrete objects and amorphous clouds of mass are their densities and the divergent gravitational affects they produce. This suggests that mass density is a critical factor in determining gravitational affects, yet it is not a variable parameter of the equations describing gravitation. Additional study of these special gravitational environments may prove to be highly instructive.
The affects of gravitation are identical at all scales, but not all masses are spherically symmetrical, and not all orbital systems are dominated by a single object containing the majority of system mass. Standard gravitational estimation methods are not directly applicable to disperse non-spherically symmetrical distributions of mass. All reports of dark matter identified by estimating the gravitational affects of non-spherically symmetrical distributions of massive objects are likely erroneous and should be thoroughly reevaluated, if not discarded. As an experienced information systems analyst, I’d have expected professional peer review to have identified these fundamental errors decades ago, long before pursuit of the dark matter hypothesis had consumed so many of the resources of astronomy, physics and cosmology.
Nothing unreal exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill true. Think not? Prove it.
Dark Matter. Under ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMust be "dirt." Problem solved. You'all dismissed now.
They won't find any because "dark matter" is a crude band-aid for fundamental mistakes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisexcellent write up jtdwyer...very much enjoyed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust wondering if observing colliding galaxies would be more useful for determining if in fact dark matter exists.
The universe does not expand. the observed red shift has wrongly been interpreted. The observed red shift is due to
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisphotons absorbed and then re-emitted at lower frequencies.
As a consequence dark energy does not exist.
Hartwig Thim, hartwig.thim@jku.at
I am just pointing out that the author is wrong in the use of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"affect" when he means "effect". Here's the correct grammar.
"effect" is both a noun & a verb. One can have an "effect"( noun) or can effect something (verb). But "affect" is not a noun, ever,
but only a verb.
'Affect' is a commonly used noun, referring to the valence of an emotional state.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt seems that what's missing from the discussion is not dark matter. The equations for General Relativity should contain a unique, fundamental flaw, not any more far-fetched than dark matter, and closely akin to Einstein's self-effacingly declared, "greatest blunder."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut I doubt the answer lies in complicated Ptolemaic-like ad-hoc hypotheses as 'darkons'.
Please read my balloon inside balloon theory of twin cyclic universes on opposite entropy path of matter and antimatter producing gravitoethertons at the common spherical boundary by anihilation of matter and antimatter which we perceive as gravity and ether and this is dark energy while the outer antimatter universe is dark matter in our calculation. We have to abandon Einsteins relativity theory and reject his idea of time as dimension and put string theory in polar coordinates taking time positive always so that a theory of every thing based on my balloon inside balloon theory . PERIMETER INSTITUTE has accepted my request to look into it and I hope a breakthrough is possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have numerically modeled several galaxies as thin disks then used their measured velocity profiles to infer a mass distribution. The mass distributions are consistent with their luminosity profiles. Summing over the masses of each ring of the model gives a total galactic mass matching other estimates. Dark matter not needed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe assumption of dark matter is not needed to model the rotation rates of galaxies, however, dark matter is so ingrained into thinking patterns that a real heavy weight, big name will be needed to move to other models.
seasprite – You’re right about overcoming the kinetic energy of dark matter (ha), but I am obstinate, at bellsouth.net.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent, jtdwyer, just superbly excellent presentation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think few can dispute your evaluation that in modelling g systems, a point source is acceptable and gives good calculated results. But when the masses are close or difuse, soooo many mini centers are enough to overcome the best of equational computation.
Well done and Happy Holidays, oh expresser of complicated ideas.
Would someone please explain what Space-Time is made of?I have asked this question may times,and never have I got an answer.Since it is the cause of gravity?Once it is finally defined will everything will add up?Could its flow through and around mass be the cause of electromagntic forces as well?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMichael, Wayne and seasprite, thank you for comprehending the necessarily difficult and tedious argument. Hopefully astrophysicists will one day understand and correct their methods of gravitational evaluation, even though it may take another forty years. Unfortunately I don’t have the mathematical acumen or access to data to accomplish that on my own. I don’t think that additional observations would be necessary to formally convince the astrophysics community: an adequate mathematical proof and proper analysis of local gravitational affects within large scale mass configurations using existing observational data should be sufficient to overturn previous interpretations. I just wish I could do more to help…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjack123 – that is actually an excellent question. It seems like most people believe they know, considering it as some physical medium, but it is really only defined as a mathematical construct, a system of coordinates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA good place to start for questions like these is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/, then doing a search on the terms in question. Wikipedia is a publicly maintained encyclopedia: as such it is not an authoritive source, but it is useful, free and available to all. Others may disagree.
It may be important to realize that all alterations of the spacetime continuum seem to require the presence of some form of energy that imparts velocity to matter. In special relativity spacetime is linearly contracted by linear motion at extreme velocities. In general relativity it is curved (perhaps as an aspect of radial contraction) by the presence of (spherically symmetrical) massive objects. I suspect there is more to this relationship than is currently understood.
jack123...i always like to keep in mind that e=mc(2). when people talk about matter what they are really talking about is an enormous amount of energy in a very small space. If you get a chance check out "Relativity The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein...It's not as bad a someone may have told you...first printing April 2005 ...ISBN:0-13-186261-8...enjoy!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso as jtdwyer states...wikipedia is a great resource...
jddwyer and seasprite:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake a look at a book out in 2009 by Fred I. Cooperstock, General Relativistic Dynamics. His position is that application of Einstein's general relativity removes the need for the dark matter "add on". To date, most cosmoligists have assumed Newtons gravity was close enough and greatly simplified the math. Cooperstock shows the error of tyhis approach.
Richard – Thanks very much for the reference. I have not read this book, but I strongly suspect, not being a physicist or mathematician, that I would not be capable of assessing his theory.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I have read an interesting review at http://members.fortunecity.es/lamb1/dark_matter1.html. It indicates that Dr. Cooperstock (Northeastern Univ.) proposes that, depending on the relative distribution of mass within a system, an non-linear effect arises that results in an increase in the local affects of gravitation, such as between stars within a galaxy. This generally seems remarkably consistent with the argument I presented. I suspect we have both independently identified the principal source of error in the gravitational evaluations supporting dark matter.
I have also found a copy of his paper submitted to the Astrophysical Journal, but not yet reviewed, at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507619.
I will attempt to evaluate this paper. I have attempted to contact Dr. Cooperstock to offer any possible assistance I can. Frankly, I’m not convinced of his theory, not understanding it, but identification of the same problems may be very important. Thanks again.
jddwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have the essence of Cooperstone's argument and it is at least very similar to yours. I'm no longer a mathmatician either, but I was able to follow his presentation.
Richard – I’ve reviewed the paper, General Relativity Resolves Galactic Rotation Without Exotic Dark Matter, by F. I. Cooperstock and S. Tieu, both of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria (Canada), as best I can. My focus has been explaining the failure of current gravitational estimation methods to adequately represent the mass distribution of disperse, complex large scale systems using Newtonian physics as originally employed. It does appear that their paper generally identifies the same problem, but focuses on providing a solution specifically designed for spiral galaxies using the physics of general relativity. It would seem that, if their solution can gain acceptance it would establish recognition of the fundamental problem. However, it appears that they are receiving criticism from astrophysicists supporting the dark matter hypothesis because they do not address galactic cluster velocities and galactic gravitational lensing effects, which may prevent acceptance of the fundamental problems. I also did not include these issues, to avoid additional complexity and confusion. I would add three paragraphs to address them:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObservations of the orbital velocities of galaxies within galactic clusters have also been cited as evidence of dark matter. Presuming similarly invalid methods have been used, representing galaxies as a single point-mass, these reports would also erroneous. These discrepancies seem to have been most often reported for edge-on spiral galaxies, in which the attractions between galactic discs have been ignored. In these cases gravitational evaluations must consider the actual spatial distributions of mass for each galaxy and determine gravitational effects based on at least a representative sample of all actual attraction vectors between galaxies.
Gravitational lensing has also been cited as dark matter evidence, especially for spiral galaxies viewed in full polar aspect, although this is sometimes confused as more direct evidence of the diffraction of light passing through peripheral dark matter. In these cases it should be expected that the curvature of spacetime at the periphery of diffuse aggregations of massive objects should create an irregular curvature of surrounding spacetime rather than the optically smooth curvature produced by spherically symmetrical massive objects. The resulting affect on the spacetime continuum must extend not only beyond the galactic center but far beyond the galaxy periphery, producing the extended distortions of light.
In some cases diffraction of light traversing apparently empty space has also been attributed to the presence of dark matter. This may be the product of an interference pattern at the intersection of spacetime regions curved by remote mass configurations, sufficient to distort light.
Being even less conversant in the gravitation of GR, I would propose a corrected estimation methodology pragmatically employing spatial partitioning of disperse distribution of masses to determine vectored attractions for each partition. I believe this engineering approach would be more generally applicable to configurations other than spiral galaxies. The GR solution may theoretically be more elegant, but I am concerned that the success of providing a singular equational expression that adequately represents the influences of disparate spatial distributions of mass. Again, I will support Cooperstock in any way possible, as I believe continued denial of the problem is unacceptable.
Thanks again,
James T. Dwyer
thuderbolts.info no need for dark matter, black holes, neutron stars....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJddwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoopersone's book starts with spiral galaxies but he goes on to clusters. He also responds to the critics in an appendix.
I have to review the book again on your other comments.
Richard - I did receive a cordial response from Dr. Cooperstock. He seemed most interested in promoting the use of GR based methods to estimate gravitation: he even stated that his method would work with or without dark matter…
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Cooperstock seems to believe that the GR equation is the key to correct g estimation. I believe he was able to produce correct results primarily because he represented the galactic disc as a fluid mass, rather than the implicit central spherical distribution produced by representing a galaxy as a single point-mass.
My objective is simply to point out the error of current g estimation methods. Even if astronomers adopt GR based methods of estimation, they could continue to produce incorrect results unless the properly represent the actual distribution of mass. My primary goal is to eliminate the erroneous identification of dark matter – I’d be pleased if anyone can accomplish that using any method.
JT Dwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have read your posts with interest. The greater the cosmic reach of astrophysics and cosmology the greater it encounters problems with traditional approaches to physics which invites ad hoc patches that seem to this observer to be more in the realm of fantasy than science. A similar problem is faced when probing in the quantum direction. Your observations about the limitations of methods employed make sense to me.
There is also another important factor involved that is not accounted for by General Relativity. Einstein insisted on local influences and rejected the action-at-distance implied by Newtonian gravitation. Einstein conceived of spacetime as a continuous field analogous to the field concept introduced Orsted, Ampere, and Faraday and employed by Maxwell to explain electromagnetic phenomena. The continuous field was conceived to bridge action at a distance. Einstein also relied on what he coined as Mach’s Principle to assume equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass. Mach’s principle is subject to various interpretations however. Late in life Einstein himself doubted that physics could be based on the continuous field concept.
The observational fact that the direction of swings of Foucault’s pendulum remains constant with respect to the (relatively) fixed stars thousands of light years distant while the earth rotates under it remains unexplained by GR. The inertial velocity of the rotating earth is clearly distinct from its gravitational mass that sets the pendulum in motion, while the arc of the pendulum’s swings is synchronous with the universe at large. The gyrocompass works on this principle. A spinning top does not fall over even though it is gravitationally supported on an unstable point.
This requires that on a cosmic scale the angular velocities of stellar masses about galactic centres are relatively fixed with respect to the synchronous universe as a whole. Their angular velocity remains independent of gravitational attraction even though gravity maintains them in orbital motion. Since the independence of inertial velocity from gravity is dependent on the synchronous universe at large any tendency to gravitational collapse is implicitly resisted. This phenomenon is not possible if physical events are linked in an assumed spacetime continuum.
It only become possible in a discontinuous universe where atoms are synchronously projected as discrete particles linked by EM radiation. In both cases curvature is introduced into the integrated fabric of space-time. In GR it is a priori to creation. In a discontinuous universe it is a posteriori to creation, since space and time are defined by the synchronous projection of matter.
EM radiation originates from atomic processes that light up the universe mainly via the contraction of space-time in the fusion of heavier elements in stellar centres. Two hydrogen atoms are two elements of space-time that fuse into one element of space time. Helium defines less than half the spatial volume of two hydrogen atoms. The neuron is a regenerative mode of the process associated with both the strong force and the weak force. It operates over a very short distance because it contracts space by a factor of 10^15 in each integrated space frame. Neutrons are essential to nuclear binding of the heavier elements as recent experiments confirm.
This alternative methodology has never been explored. See the article on Cosmology that is intended to demonstrate the methodology in a general way at www.cosmic-mindreach.com. I can send a related article on the mathematical foundations of atomic theory and QM if you are interested. My site-builder does not permit me to post mathematical equations.
Best wishes,
Weir (Bob)
(Bob) – Thanks for your interest and consideration. I hope that the article makes sense to all readers, and may eventually lead to a refinement of estimation methods.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also find some of your ideas to be very interesting, but my limited specific knowledge of physics makes them difficult for me to assess. Unfortunately I am also not a mathematician, but you could try rocketmail.com.
Weir: Huh? Are you thinking along the lines of quantum gravity? Some of your comments seem to identify with those who postulate a sort of grid, a continuous field I believe, out of which all the stuff of the universe condenses. Then In the Cooperstone book I cited earlier, he says that gravity is not a field like EM but is the mere geometry of spacetime. I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is apparent that there are some basic holes in our understanding of these things and that a lot of physicists are heading off in wrong directions. Nothing new there. Keep challenging them>
Richard - As near as I have been able to determine, GR defines spacetime only as an abstract system of coordinates used to calculate the motions resulting from the affects of gravitation. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but this seems more like the definition of a mathematical construct than a physical entity or force, and yet physical affects are attributed to the curvature of spacetime. I find this unacceptable, just as Einstein reportedly found Newton's reliance on an imaginary attractive force to be unacceptable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suspect that physical reality lies in between the two: a kinetic energy permeating space directed and contracted by the potential energy of mass; the intersection of opposingly directed force vectors forming an effective attractive force between two masses. But I am far from being able to adequately explain this idea, and not likely to ever effectively do so.
I know I'm stretching a point here, but I believe the effect of gravitation can be viewed as the velocity imparted by the contraction of the kinetic energy of space by the potential energy of mass.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn this sense, rather than a point directed emission of energy, such as light, gravitation is the point directed absorption of external energy by mass. The potential energy of mass functions as an energy sink. Maybe, anyway...
JDDWYER:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you lay awake nights thinking about this stuff? I do -- actually I go to sleep with it.
A lot of things seem to me to be mathmatical constructs that we take very seriously. Potential energy, for example, doesn't seem to be real in the same sense as photons and mass are. Fields are math.
Some theories turn things upside down and give fields a physical reality and condense mass and energy out of them.
What are you doing different?
Ideas do seem to come most often when almost asleep… Again, these are undeveloped ideas – I haven’t done the math.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe inverse relationship between particle velocity and rest mass may be as much effect as cause. If emission of energy in the current universe most often produces a high velocity particle, perhaps in the ultra-high density early universe the energy of emission could not be completely expressed as kinetic motion. In that case, depending on the prevailing density at emission, the energy of emission may have instead encapsulated material energy, producing the external quantum field effect of potential mass. The potential energy of mass may be an internally directed wave of self-opposed energy. Application of external energy would be partially opposed and absorbed by this physical external field.
This physical process could help to explain why application of external energy increases effective mass, why massive objects 'curve' (contract) the external kinetic energy of space, and particle collisions do not produce a mass mediating Higgs Boson: external mass dissipates as kinetic energy. Universal density performs the particle selection function assigned to the Higgs field.
However, I can't do the math, and have not performed a complete consistency check with the accepted laws of physics… In my limited view, mathematical descriptions of physics are only effective when they accurately represent at least an aspect of actual physical processes, not because they are mathematically correct and consistent.
This conception of quantum mass may also help to explain the existence of the strong nuclear force and account for the apparent weakness of gravitation in relation to the other fundamental forces. Since the affects of gravitation are an indirect effect of potential energy imparted through the disperse kinetic energy of space, its relative strength is much less than affects directly enacted by particle fields.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, in this case gravitation should not be considered a fundamental force at all: mass is the fundamental force producing the effects of gravitation and the apparent strong nuclear force.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDM not an option
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNewtonian mechanics is everything to do with acceleration and inertia and nothing to do with gravity and there is no viable explanation on the origin of inertia or gravity to date.
Newton had no idea of what gravity is, Einstein came close to explain the mechanism behind gravity but is still incomplete. They gave us working equations for inertia and gravity and that is all.
Space is the playing field for all matter, like Einstein said, matter loves to distort space
or warp space and in that process create gravity. But what he did not explain is how it is done. Like we all believe now, this is a very elegant idea indeed, which is backed by many experimental verifications. Einstein never set up boundaries for his equations and never liked the idea of using his equations to explain infinities. But alas, others used his equations to calculate the extremes of gravity behavior in space like black holes and singularities as if the equations were valid under those conditions and did not breakdown.
This belief has spawned a vast scientific theoretical industry which is speculating on many fronts even today, all without observational experimental proof on like black holes and therefore on holographic and entropic principles too.
Like Einstein said matter curves space and space tells matter on how to behave in space.
This is all fine, but did it occur to anyone that in addition, space by itself can be naturally curved without matter being around? Therefore a test particle will follow the natural space curves and appear to feel a fictitious force without real matter being present?
This is the idea I put forward to explain dark matter at my website cosmicdarkmatter dot com (5th tab) published free. I also have an article to explain the origin of inertia and gravity(6th tab) for purchase.
ktperera - Despite forty years of attributing to hypothesized Dark Matter purported physical phenomena, identified by astronomers from the discrepancies between their estimated velocity produced by estimated visible mass and their estimated observed velocities, particle physicists cannot identify any detected form of matter that meets the requirements specified for it. The simplest, best and most likely solution to this predicament is that the phenomena are identified erroneously and that no Dark Matter exists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn an analysis of lensing data of a galaxy cluster, the dark matter has been modeled as isothermal fermions. This yielded a mass of the dark matter particle of 1-2 eV. Heavy particles such as discussed in this article do not fit the data, neither do axions . The best case is neutrinos of 1.5 eV. This analysis explains a lot of lensing data, while the galaxies and X-ray gas are also incorporated. It even gives an alternative explanation for the reionization, not invoking Pop III stars. The objection that this "hot dark matter" is contradicted by cosmological data like CMB, is based on overlooking a viscous instability in the plasma, the state of the universe before the decoupling of photons at redshift z=1100.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hazy smoke found around galaxies by Hubble telescope is being described by astronomers as Dark matter but that is not the case. This is very high density ether around some super heavy galaxies of neutron stars and is strong ether or dark energy which cause gravity and expansion of our universe. The outer antimatter universe around our matter universe is the dark matter as explained in my balloon inside balloon theory and theory of gravitoethertons published in ASTRONOMY.NET in the year 2002.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease review the more complete essay/article,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Mass Distribution Characteristics Invalidate the Galaxy Rotation Problem"
posted at:
http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/Mass_Distribution-_Galaxy_Rotation_Problem.pdf
Very well explained as always JT, I value your comments. I believe measurements of the CMB also indicate that some 30% of the "stuff" in our universe is dark matter, so this seems to be providing separate coroboration for its need. Extrapolating your observation, do you think this might also be affected by mass distribution as a whole in the universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your very kind remarks, and for reminding me of this very interesting discussion! Things do change in a couple of years. Over the past couple of years I've been fortunate to have made acquaintances of quite a few much more capable physicists who have come to similar conclusions about galactic dark matter. A more recent commentary that includes a few references to some of their research can be found at http://www.sciencewithoutfiction.com/uploads/JDwyer.PDF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've focused on the galaxy rotation issue simply because, as I see it, it is product of a fundamental misconception that can be explained in a very straightforward manor. Other observational evidence used to infer the existence of dark matter, such as the CMB & big bang theory and gravitational lensing rely on extremely complex analytical methods and interpretations of data to do so.
As you point out, the CMD data is also used by cosmologists to infer the existence of dark matter. Frankly, I can't follow their reasoning or analyses well enough to critique them. While wikipedia is not an authoritative source, it does contain links to additional references. The entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
currently contains two very curious pie charts illustrating some accounting for the distribution of matter (mass) and energy in the universe. One represents the distribution at the moment the CMB was emitted, 380,000 years ago:
12% - Atoms
15% - Photons
10% - Neutrinos
63% - Dark matter
The other chart represents the 'current' distribution of mass and energy:
<5% - Atoms
23% - Dark matter
72% - Dark energy
For these distributions to be correct (presuming that the total energy of the universe has remained constant) it seems that a great deal of mass (mostly in the form of dark matter) must have been somehow converted to dark energy. I presume that the current attribution of dark energy is intended to produce the inferred acceleration of spacetime expansion, but in that case wouldn't some form of energy have been necessary to produce the initial expansion of the universe? I'm certainly no cosmologist, but there seems to be some dark reasoning going on here...
All I can really say is that there is a great deal about the current 'standard model of cosmology' that I certainly don't understand.
I do think though, that if galactic rotation can be explained without dark matter (or modified gravity) that the dark matter presumed in cosmology and gravitational lensing might have difficulty justifying the existence of exotic dark matter on their own merits...