The discovery, led by a University of Michigan physics researcher, confirms a key prediction in the prevailing theory of how the universe’s current web-like structure evolved.
The map of the known universe shows that most galaxies are organized into clusters, but some galaxies are situated along filaments that connect the clusters. Cosmologists have theorized that dark matter undergirds those filaments, which serve as highways of sorts, guiding galaxies toward the gravitational pull of the massive clusters. Dark matter’s contribution had been predicted with computer simulations, and its shape had been roughed out based on the distribution of the galaxies. But no one had directly detected it until now.
“We found the dark matter filaments. For the first time, we can see them,” said Jörg Dietrich, a physics research fellow in the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts. Dietrich is first author of a paper on the findings published online in Nature and to appear in the July 12 print edition.
Dark matter, whose composition is still a mystery, doesn’t emit or absorb light, so astronomers can’t see it directly with telescopes. They deduce that it exists based on how its gravity affects visible matter. Scientists estimate that dark matter makes up more than 80 percent of the universe. To “see” the dark matter component of the filament that connects the clusters Abell 222 and 223, Dietrich and his colleagues took advantage of a phenomenon called gravitational lensing.
The gravity of massive objects such as galaxy clusters acts as a lens to bend and distort the light from more distant objects as it passes. Dietrich’s team observed tens of thousands of galaxies beyond the supercluster. They were able to determine the extent to which the supercluster distorted galaxies, and with that information, they could plot the gravitational field and the mass of the Abell 222 and 223 clusters. Seeing this for the first time was “exhilarating,” Dietrich said.
“It looks like there’s a bridge that shows that there is additional mass beyond what the clusters contain,” he said. “The clusters alone cannot explain this additional mass,” he said.
Scientists before Dietrich assumed that the gravitational lensing signal would not be strong enough to give away dark matter’s configuration. But Dietrich and his colleagues focused on a peculiar cluster system whose axis is oriented toward Earth, so that the lensing effects could be magnified.
“This result is a verification that for many years was thought to be impossible,” Dietrich said when we spoke with him at a local green coffee shop.
The team also found a spike in X-ray emissions along the filament, due to an excess of hot, ionized ordinary matter being pulled by gravity toward the massive filament, but they estimate that 90 percent or more of the filament’s mass is dark matter.
The researchers used data obtained with the Subaru telescope, operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. They also used the XMM-Newton satellite for X-ray observations. This work is funded by the National Science Foundation and NASA. Other contributors are from the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology at Stanford University; Ohio University; Max Planck Institut für extraterrestrische Physik in Germany; The University of Edinburgh and the University of Oxford.
The paper is titled “A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies.” Read the text at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11224.html.
###
A filament of dark matter between two clusters of galaxies
Jörg P. Dietrich, Norbert Werner, Douglas Clowe, Alexis Finoguenov, Tom Kitching, Lance Miller &Aurora Simionescu
- Nature 487, 202–204 (12 July 2012) doi:10.1038/nature11224
- Received 25 January 2012 Accepted 11 May 2012 Published online 04 July 2012
It is a firm prediction of the concordance cold-dark-matter cosmological model that galaxy clusters occur at the intersection of large-scale structure filaments1. The thread-like structure of this ‘cosmic web’ has been traced by galaxy redshift surveys for decades2, 3. More recently, the warm–hot intergalactic medium (a sparse plasma with temperatures…
Hurrah! A vignette on astrophysics, gravitational lensing, and physical confirmation of dark matter!!!
I will look forward to them laying out how they are certain about the distances from us these phenomena are.
Who was the last guy to talk of drivel?
I read this a few days ago. I am sure they mapped something. I am sure something has caused the measurements they and others have made. Everything else is speculation. It is fun to speculate and play the what if I… game. At least the cosmologists are rational and sober (well maybe not) enough to take themselves no more seriously then the empirical measurements will.
So, they have a map of where their fudge factor needs to be located to to explain, within standard accepted physics theology, their lack of understanding of the interaction between matter, energy and the resultant curvature of space (gravity). Sorry, I ain’t buying it…96% of the visible universe is “dark BS”. Think outside the box, guys, you’re missing something!!
This question will, to the vast majority of your readers, be certain evidence of the questioners (my) lack of education, knowledge and etc. However, if some kind person could bear with me and answer my question, I would be grateful.
Question.
The current theory of the origin of the universe seems to state that after the big bang, matter streamed outwards from it’s origin and has continued accelerating ever since. Dark matter slows this acceleration down.
But our common experience is that any object we know of which is ejected violently from something else, by whatever means, will eventually lose speed and stop.
OK, this is because of environmental conditions around the ejected object.
We are told, and easily accept this, that if our object was ejected violently in a perfect vacuum, and free of gravity it would never slow down, it would just continue on at the same speed, forever.
How is it then that the particles ejected during the big bang, do not slow down, do not continue at the same speed forever, but actually accelerate. What is the accelerating force?
I agree. with Jim G.
it seems to me is a 96% of the universe is made up of mathematical particles and hyperdense equations.
These co(s)mic models remind me so much of global warming models.
And, by the way, they did not “directly detect it” or “see it”, they inferred it based upon their theoretical “beliefs”. Check that subaru telescope for rust, my first one, car that is, rusted out quite rapidly.
Did you see this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html ?
Sorry, if you already knew it.
[REPLY: Yes, we did. -REP]
Concerning the Dark Matter model I strongly recomend to read the new paper of P. Kroupa titled “The Dark Matter Crisis: Falsification of the Current Standard Model of Cosmology”, published in the Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia.
Link: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AS12005.htm
Direct link to the pdf: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS12005.pdf
Jim G.’s wake-up call should be taken seriously. Astronomer’s interpretations of gravitational lensing incorporate unquestioned assumptions. This is not really a direct detection; it may be just another example of confirmation bias. This report and even one hundred more “verifications” of cold dark matter may not stand up against an overwhelming falsification, which may come at any time in the future.
It sounds more like they’re describing electrical currents in plasma than magically invisible dark matter.
I wondered when someone was going to announce discovery of the imagined dark matter. I suspect there is a tautology at work here. Dark matter was postulated because gravity (as we know it) seemed too weak to account for the behaviour of spiral arms, etc. Shouldn’t we be re-evaluating what we “know” about gravity? I think the path to a unified theory is blocked by such fantasies as dark matter, but like Ptolemy with planetary motions in a geocentric universe, we will shoe-horn things to fit and even be able to make predictions with this painful cobbling.
Keith Battye says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
I will look forward to them laying out how they are certain about the distances from us these phenomena are.
There are lots of places you can an explanation of that. Look around, and don’t pretend to be dumb. But the observation reported here does not depend on the distances being accurately known.
I may have misunderstood the principles but I thought they were describing a 3 dimensional model, in which case the distances are surely important.
Take a picture of two humans. One is sleeping, and the other is walking. The sleeping person is consistent with physical models, but the walking person exhibits unexplained motion of its appendages. I propose that the arms and legs are tugged by clumps of disembodied gravity surrounding the person.
Too right Jim G!
Trained in cosmology myself, the accepted cosmologyical model was all nonsense, nothing like science or physics. Just a load of very speculative maths theories, where if they broke, another fudge factor was chucked in, it was a routine. Then cosmologists would pat them selves on the back for another fudge factor ‘discovered’.
Today I’m really please to say I’m seeing the sad religion of dark matter and friends is losing substancial ground to other theories. The lectures on other theories are packing out theatres and are financially solvent enough to grow their own community.
It been great fun to follow it. The internet is an important media for these alternate ideas to prosper.
It turns out the establishment model has no right calling their model ‘ the standard model ‘ . It leaves out parts of the physics they don’t like.
Jim G says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Think outside the box, guys, you’re missing something!!
Dark Matter is thinking out of the box you seem to be in.
Hold on, get ready for the kooks w/their pet theories….
Sheer nonsense. A term in an equation is not “matter”.
If they would give up on particles altogether and go back to de Broglie’s idea that everything is just waveforms, they might start making sense. Simplify, simplify, simplify.
Will the Higgs boson make up dark matter? gravity and all. Maybe dark matter is only Higgs bosons.
We find the God particle and dark matter in the same week. Who’d a thunk it.
I further propose that, by taking pictures of millions of walking humans and using motion blur or the Doppler effect to produce a map of the dark matter causing their anomalous movements, perhaps we can gain a better understanding of how these walking humans formed and predict where they will be located in the future.
Good old Dark Matter. If observations don’t match the theory, throw away the observations.
The theory predicts that we should be able to see lots more stuff in our telescopes than we can. Therefore most of the stuff must be invisible. Jeenyus.
Keith Battye: a good introduction to this topic, and how they know with a fair degree of certainty how far away distant objects are, can be found in the book “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss. It’s available on the iBooks store, among other places.
Specifically – there is a direct relationship between the brightness of a certain kind of star called a Cephid, and the period of it’s oscillations. There’s a direct relationship between the brightness of a star and its distance from us (via the inverse square rule). Therefore, if you know the period of a Cephid star, and its brightness, you can work out with a fair amount of accuracy its distance from us. The distances were then later confirmed by using a different mechanism involving the relationship between the brightness and duration of supernova stars (about 3 supernova are observable somewhere in the sky on any given night). These tools give us an extremely accurate picture of the scale and distance of the Universe.
Furthermore, an examination of the spectra of these stars can show red or blue shifts, which can tell us with a high degree of accuracy at what speed distant objects are moving away or towards us. So we know that the Universe is expanding, how fast it has been expanding, and even that it is accelerating, not slowing down due to gravity.
The book is also a great introduction into why theories such as “dark matter” and “dark energy” are important because there simply isn’t enough visible matter and energy in the universe to explain its “flatness” and the acceleration of expansion that we are witnessing.
Thank you for that information, it is greatly appreciated.
Having followed most of it I would still express some concern about the distances being stated as the assumptions seem to accumulate.
My gray matter rejects dark matter. Observation of light bending in the 1919 total eclipse was the first proof of Einsteins Relativity. For Universal models, i prefer the “Einsten-Godel Rotating Universe Model”…surpressed since 1949. The Cosmologists are not robbing us of big ‘alarm’ grants, but openess is lacking. See “Federally Funded Franken Science” on the possible reasons why…..part of a series including “The Cure for Cosmology’s Peptic Ulcer” and “Mysterious ‘Dr X’ says Universe is NOT Expanding”. [the post AGW science debate?]
A good tutorial on cosmology can be found here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Comology/cos01.pdf
There are 17 chapters. To see chapter nn use cosnn.pdf in the above link.
Many of your questions may answered there. Before shooting your mouth off, go check out the link(s), then pose questions to things you don’t understand.
I’m not a big believer in dark matter. When you have to event something out of thin air to explain an expanding universe you are really starting on the wrong end of discovery. And when you make a theory that states I will look into the universe until I find data that proves my theory you create an eventuality. The universe is big. Its really big. You look long enough your going to find absolutely anything you want. It becomes probable that you will find you own name written in gold with in a some yet unknown nebula. This isn’t science, its a money grab.
James Evans says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:12 pm
The theory predicts that we should be able to see lots more stuff in our telescopes than we can. Therefore most of the stuff must be invisible.
And that is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that we indeed cannot see it. We can, however, measure the gravitational effects from Dark Matter which shows it is there, just like in the 19th century we hadn’t seen the planet Neptune, but we knew it was there because of its gravitational effects on Uranus. We could even from those effects calculate where Neptune should be, and that is indeed where we found it. Such is the power of science.
beng says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Hold on, get ready for the kooks w/their pet theories….
They are already here, in farce.
A good tutorial on cosmology can be found here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology/cos01.pdf
Is it warming or cooling and did we cause it?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Jim G says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Think outside the box, guys, you’re missing something!!
“Dark Matter is thinking out of the box you seem to be in.”
Like many of your responses, your gigantic ego is evident but not your logic. Dark matter is a fudge factor to fit with the existing most popular theory. I would not throw out the theory but find what is missing within it. Try not to be so nasty, you will be much happier in the long run.
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Question.
The current theory of the origin of the universe seems to state that after the big bang, matter streamed outwards from its origin
No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.
This is very similar to the Higgs Boson announcement. They have illuminated an anomaly where they expected, but have not identified the actual anomaly. Too early for parades, but it is exciting. GK
Dark Matter; Terra Incognita: only the names change.
Did they find Darth Vader too?
Fascinating stuff, with a few problems:
Scientists have, for the first time, directly detected part of the invisible dark matter skeleton of the universe, where more than half of all matter is believed to reside.
Indirectly. They say, “Dark matter, whose composition is still a mystery, doesn’t emit or absorb light, so astronomers can’t see it directly with telescopes. They deduce that it exists based on how its gravity affects visible matter”. I believe this should say “radiation” as opposed to just “light”, but the point is moot – dark matter, as theorised, is unobservable directly. Only its effects can be measured.
“We found the dark matter filaments. For the first time, we can see them,” said Jörg Dietrich
They may or may not have found dark matter filaments, but they have not been “seen”. This does not detract from their work or their abilities, but it is inaccurate reporting, and does them no favours in a time when every phrase is instantly scrutinised for accuracy and meaning. It would be a shame for good, honest work to be demeaned because of this.
Leif,
Would you kindly repost the file? I get
404 Error File Not Found
The page you are looking for might have been removed,
had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
More modeling madness
Lief mozilla reports same altho there is nothing wrong with the address.
I was able to navigate from here:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology/
GK
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Question.
The current theory of the origin of the universe seems to state that after the big bang, matter streamed outwards from its origin
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything”
No Leif, it is more probable that both were occuring, space was expanding and the matter within it was moving in whatever direction was dictated by gravity or the energy imparted to it by the initial conditions of the “Big Bang”. Some theories say this was the explosion of a singularity and some the collision of another “multiverse” with ours. In either case, since I was not there at the time I will only say “probable”. If you were there, let me know.
Wow! Are there really sheeple like this? Scientists use far more accurate methods to determine these things than those upon which we all rely. I’m assuming these guys don’t believe X-Rays, UV or infra-red is real, either. Observing gravitational lensing is no different to observing diffraction through water. Healthy scepticism is one thing but this level of ignorance is quite confronting.
I’m frankly alarmed at the level of unscientific thinking being demonstrated here. Leif is perfectly correct when he says you should read up on this subject before commenting on it further. You are only exposing your ignorance of the issues involved. Cosmology and Quantum mechanics are bastions of hard headed, fact and evidence based science where there is a healthy community of skeptical thinking and experimentation, and wholesale throwing out of theories that no longer fit. I can’t of any other scientific fields which are more ready to destroy all of their theoretical underpinnings on the basis of experimental observation. And both fields are full of competing theories, where experimental evidence is sought and demanded to prove or disprove them.
Please don’t apply your well deserved disdain for Climate Science to Cosmology or Particle Physics. At least in Cosmology they test their theories, and modify them to fit new observational evidence.
It would be interesting to learn this is a Lagrangian point between galactic clusters and that there’s really nothing there but gravity.
James Hastings-Trew says (July 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm): “Please don’t apply your well deserved disdain for Climate Science to Cosmology or Particle Physics. At least in Cosmology they test their theories, and modify them to fit new observational evidence.”
When one branch of science becomes untrustworthy, it inevitably tarnishes the reputation of all science. Cosmology and particle physics are especially vulnerable because they’re so complex and just so…bizarre…compared with our ordinary experience.
Perhaps the universe is only a failed experiment by an imperfect demigod and the reason it is so hard to figure out is because that demigod had no idea what they were doing. No plan at all.
If I remember correctly, the universe’s missing matter turns out to be all the packaging that the instruments, bought by scientists to detect missing matter, were wrapped in, which they had thrown away – according the that infallible work ‘The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ anyway.
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm
…Please don’t apply your well deserved disdain for Climate Science to Cosmology or Particle Physics. At least in Cosmology they test their theories, and modify them to fit new observational evidence.
Hear, hear!
There are many other issues that have been brought up by reputable scientists that obviate the need for the dark matter and/or dark energy factors and/or elliminate some of the problems of combining quantum physics with general relativity including: separation of space/time into space and time, the potential for the speed of light to have been different under the initial conditions of the new born universe, the possible (probable?) quantum nature of space itself with discrete quantae of space, different energy levels at a given time and place, location and/or size factors which might cause the rules to change. Just as at one level Newtonian physics was a good predictor of what one might see through a telescope but general relativity was better and more accurate. Guys like João Magueijo and Steven Hawking and Petr Hořava and many others are not kooks and have discussed these issues and written about them and are thinking outside the box. Inside the box people accept what is most popular.
Not to panic, dark evil forces of our universe Dark Matter and Dark Energy are kept at a distance from our precious galaxy by the good guys, baryonic fighters known as MACHOs reflecting their superior potency.
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm
“I’m frankly alarmed at the level of unscientific thinking being demonstrated here. Leif is perfectly correct when he says you should read up on this subject before commenting on it further.”
Advising others to read up on a subject because they disagree with you when you do not have any idea what their educational background is or what they may have read is, in itself, remarkably
condescending and evidence of poor judgement.
“The gravity of massive objects such as galaxy clusters acts as a lens to bend and distort the light from more distant objects as it passes.”……..
==========
So, if the light passes just the right way around these lens/clusters, we could see the light emitted by our galaxy 2 billion years ago ?
You know, like using a planets gravity to induce the trajectory for our deep space satellites.
The right trajectory would send a satellite right back at us.
Light is different ?
Dark matter isn’t all that exotic when you think about it. I’m not a physicist so what follows is my own layman’s understanding and may be subject to error:
Particles and forces that you know about are seen or detected by us with our simple senses. For example, the electromagnetic force is what keeps your hand from intersecting with your desk – the forces exerted by the particles in your hand are repelled by the forces of the particles in your desk. Magnetism is a particular manifestation of this force which acts at a distance because the electron spin of the atoms in the magnet are all going in the same direction — this magnifies the effect of the force. Other fields and forces are carried by particles that have no mass – photons and (theoretical) gravitons. Photons interact with the gravitational force, in that their motion can be deflected by large gravitational fields. I don’t believe they interact with the electromagnetic force. Neither does gravity, from what I understand.
Dark matter is comprised simply of another type of particle that does not interact at all with most of the other atomic forces – they neither directly block or deflect the motion of photons, and they are not repelled by the electromagnetic force – they simply do not interact with matter at all, except through the gravitational force. This makes they very difficult to detect, they are truly invisible.
This experiment looked for dark matter where it was expected to exist, and detected only by the effect of its interaction with the gravitational force and its effect on passing photons. That’s what this experiment set out to prove, and it appears that it was successful. A theoretical filament of dark matter was detected because its observed interaction with photons of light from stars behind it matched the predicted value for that interaction. Its all perfectly straightforward.
For Leif Svalgaard
Thanks for your reply to mine.
Quote.
“The current theory of the origin of the universe seems to state that after the big bang, matter “streamed outwards from its origin
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is “expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.”
Unquote.
This prompts further questions, such as:-
What is “Space?”
Is it nothing?
If so, how can “nothing”, “stream away?” Doesn’t the phrase streaming away suggest something, or a group of somethings, moving in a direction, either singly or as a group? If so, how can this phrase apply to nothing?
Or, is it something?
In other words, is it partially (or even filled) space?
Now, if the space in any way contained matter, then by your definition, it cannot move, see above.
Therefore, following your definition, space is empty.
So, this place where we all live, all happily cohabit, discussing things of great scientific import, this great globe itself, all is being carried along as a mere particle in nothing?
If that is so, it still doesn’t answer the question.
“How is it that after all these billions of years, our great globe is still accelerating?
Surely it should be either:-
(1) Moving at a constant speed (as befits something in empty space)?
or
(2) Accelerating negatively (slowing down, as a result of the space it is in containing something other than us)?
Peter Melia: “How is it then that the particles ejected during the big bang, do not slow down, do not continue at the same speed forever, but actually accelerate. What is the accelerating force?”
The Universe warps back upon itself, (beginning is the end); thus pulling upon itself, resulting in the acceleration of matter making up Universe. Okay, total non-sense, but if Hansen, Geist, Mann, and Gore can B.S. about CO2 feedback accelerating Global Climate Change…
Is this map made from computer modeling on the hypothesis that dark matter really exist?
The very title of this piece (“for the first time”) of news is incorrect. There were several previous announcements of the “first” confirmation of the existence of the so-called “dark matter” by using the gravitational lensing effect. The last one, if I remember correctly, was all over the news couple of years ago. Each one quietly fizzled. There are always simpler, more conventional explanations of what has been observed.
Scientific establishment is grasping at last straws trying to keep the Big Bang afloat. The fact that Dr. Svalgaard bestirred himself to a new series of condescending poisonous comments on this topic is in itself an evidence of something being very wrong with this announcement.
It might be a good idea to cite the original source of this article:
http://www.ns.umich.edu/new/releases/20623-dark-matter-scaffolding-of-universe-detected-for-the-first-time
I should probably also point out what is often meant by a “sighting”. That’s a 5-sigma likelihood of the presence of an object, assuming a well-validated model. In this case, the model is General Relativity for the lensing and “We should see it like we see everything else because the telescope works” for visibility of non-dark-matter objects, and the assumption that there don’t happen to be multiple roughly identical galaxies which are just distorted the right way to look like multiple images of one behind a gravitational lens. I think the model-assumptions are pretty safe.
There was some worry that the “threads” were just modelling-errors due to low resolution or failure to account for something, though they appear in every model I’ve seen. Resolution is limited by computational resources for all simulations regardless of model. It looks like they’re real. I wish I had more info, but I was tired yesterday and too late for Astro-Coffee where I the paper was presented, I think by Jorg.
I also wish I had cookies. It smelled like they had cookies. The cookies at the University of Michigan are about the size of my face and loaded with chocolate. Now I’m off-topic.
Well I have not yet read their paper (but will), but I’m inclined to believe (think/feel/whatever) that dark matter has already been discovered. It’s a bit like UFOs; they simply are unidentified.
Dark matter has made its presence known according to our fairly ordinary ideas of Physics, whether Newtonian, or Einsteinian, in that something presently unidentified is exhibiting the presence of a considerable amount of mass; that so far has not been connected to any EM radiating material; hence it is “Dark” in that sense.
I’m pretty dense when it comes to cosmology, but if I’m not mistaken, dark matter has not been shown to not be ordinary matter, which then raises a question as to how dense is this stuff supposed to be ? If it consisted of ordinary isolated atoms, what would be the mean free path between such ordinary atoms, to explain the total amount of mass of that kind in a given volume ?
Then if that MFP is large; perhaps km or more (or not), each such atom, would be essentially isolated, so collisions would be extremely rare events (maybe).
In that case, each such atom, is essentially in free flight, so it has a Temperature of zero Kelvins.
Therefore it cannot radiate a thermal; radiation spectrum. Who knows what the density of EM radiation might be in such “highly expanded” regions far away.
So it is not inconceivable to me, that this could be ordinary matter, so rarified, as to undergo virtually no interraction with other similar atoms. OK, so maybe occasionally a friendly photon comes along and excites such an atom, which subsequently emits some sort of photon, but at such a low population density, such collections of atoms could appear to be totally dark from our distance, hence we could call it dark matter.
I assume that any such material in our general neighborhood, is too close to massive gravitational fields, and gets captured by some star/planet/comet/whatever, so we never don’t see it not radiating.
All this is of course of the WAG kind of suggestion; and maybe Leif in a few words, can disabuse me of my silliness.
But for the moment, I’m happy to assume that is is ordinary junk; just dark, and not yet identified.
Now “dark energy” is definitely not something I am comfortable with; I like it as much as I like parallel universes, and strings.
It’s called Dark Matter because current theories throw very little light on what it is.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Question.
The current theory of the origin of the universe seems to state that after the big bang, matter streamed outwards from its origin
No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything
==================================================
I am with replete. What is space that it can expand, and what does it expand into?
Long, long ago, in a universe far away…
“Serious Blow to Dark Matter Theories? New Study Finds Mysterious Lack of Dark Matter in Sun’s Neighborhood
ScienceDaily (Apr. 18, 2012) — The most accurate study so far of the motions of stars in the Milky Way has found no evidence for dark matter in a large volume around the Sun. According to widely accepted theories, the solar neighbourhood was expected to be filled with dark matter, a mysterious invisible substance that can only be detected indirectly by the gravitational force it exerts. But a new study by a team of astronomers in Chile has found that these theories just do not fit the observational facts. This may mean that attempts to directly detect dark matter particles on Earth are unlikely to be successful.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120418111923.htm
Per Strandberg: “Is this map made from computer modeling on the hypothesis that dark matter really exist?”
It was based on a hunch by Hansen, with the Mann-ipulated data coming from studying core samples taken from rings of planets in Yamal Nebula and Polar Urals Cluster by infamous space explorer Briffa.
/sarc
Of course there is good reason to be suspicious of hyped science — we have seen all to much of it, and not just in the climate fiasco. However there is very strong evidence that there is a huge amount of invisible mass in the universe, concentrated in and around galaxies. This comes from direct observation of how galaxies rotate and comparing those observations to the way they should rotate if only the visible mass was there.
As for what it is; how it got to be there; and the details of how it is distributed, that science “is not settled.”
Curious idea of “direct” detection.
I understand what dark matteer is supposed to be, and the reasoning behind this article. But, color me skeptical. I have a hard time thinking of mass without thermal energy.
Roger, there is very strong evidence that we do not understand why galaxies do not fly apart. Enter Dark Matter, as Deus ex Machina. But, is our understanding of gravity over cosmological, or even galactic, scales complete? Neton’s was until Einstein.
Actually, Newton’s was accurate until detailed measurements of Mercury’s orbit ere made. Einstein later explained the divergence of theory and mobservation. Time we had some of that attitude in Crimatology.
The contrasting color and underline at “James Hastings-Trew” indicates that he has a website connected to his WUWT user name. At that site he indicates he is a commercial artist that draws pictures of planets…along with the nice nude screen save i captured. My contrast/underlined website has a “Cosmology” tab were i discuss some of the errors of the ‘big bang hoax’, including every hypothesis advanced above. Einstein, who understood a thing or two about our Universe, said that the Universe could not be static. The Universe MUST be expanding, contracting or ROTATING. His Princeton professor colleague, Kurt Godel provided the mathematics to PROVE rotation, and when announced, the CIA intervened. It is past time to examine ‘other’ thoughtful explanations for the unseen and unexplainable.
@ MotorMouth “Observing gravitational lensing is no different to observing diffraction through water. Healthy scepticism is one thing but this level of ignorance is quite confronting.”
Perhaps you meant to say “refraction” instead of “diffraction”.
OMG! That´s Dark Bile, a sympthom of Melancholic (Melanos=Black; Chole= Bile) spirits wandering in the universe… 🙂
@ FauxScienceSlayer
Just a quick note on the relationship between Einstein and Godel. Both worked at Princeton, and usually walked home together deep in conversation. Einstein once remarked that he went to his office each day “chiefly to walk home with Gödel.”
I see no agenda at work here and no reason to doubt that Dietrich et al have found something, something interesting that mimics Dark Matter as currently understood. Even if they’re eventually proved wrong, we’ll still have learned something we didn’t know before. Will their work stand the test of time and replication? Let’s wait and see, before we make further statements as potentially embarrassing as many of those above. Snark is the hallmark of believers, not sceptics.
Ok, let’s cut out the philosophic discussion of gravitation lensing and just blame it all on Global Whatevertheheckitistoday. Personally, I think this was an important step in understanding our universe. But that’s just me. It might just be tree rings for all I know…
http://milesmathis.com/dark2.pdf
I’ve a couple questions here. Earlier, someone said dark matter doesn’t emit or absorb light. Does it block or reflect light? I’m guessing it is transparent since we attribute blocked light to interstellar dust.
I notice that Faux Science Slayer who has a highlighted name notices the link at James Hastings-Trew is a highlighted name also, and that is due to filling in the website information along with name and email address when you post.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Jim G says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Think outside the box, guys, you’re missing something!!
Dark Matter is thinking out of the box you seem to be in.
Uh, yeah, OK Leif. Let’s all make up stuff with virtually no grounding in science or reality.
Jeff Mitchell,
good question, except they don’t really have a lot of details to give us other than it apparently has a REPULSIVE force to herd all that inconvenient matter into neat orbits. Do you also wonder how while forcing that misbehavin’ normal matter into line it isn’t spreading into instellar space?!??!!
I guess they will tell us next that it doesn’t have a normal momentum or it attracts itself to offset the normal matter repulsion perfectly so it doesn’t contract or expand or…???!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Peter, try this:
http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu/tutorial/hubble.html
Listen to Leif.
Wow. In a time of threats of massive reductions in scientific research spending we have the CERN discovery of bosons one week and the discovery of black matter the next. I know it’s coincidence but what’s a scpetic to think?
11 July: NZ Herald: Kieran Campbell: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming
Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems.
Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.
Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said the breakthrough had taken scientists “completely by surprise”…
***The findings do not contradict existing science about global warming, but rather explain how much CO2 is absorbed by plants and animals, with some of the CO2 then being passed from plants into the land.
A report into the findings says the increase in uptake is “a big number”, about one billion tonnes of carbon per year.
“To put it into context, that is over 10 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions for 2010,” the report said…
“What it does mean is that the climate change has been a lot slower than it would have been otherwise (because) less of the CO2 we’re producing is staying in the atmosphere.”…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10818936
***go figure.
——————————————————————————–
“Robert of Ottawa says:
July 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm
mobservation ”
?? consensus
There is no “direct detection” of anything here, it is just another example of that there is more gravity in the universe than observed mass for it. Because we know “matter” to gravitate, we therefore assume that the gap is caused by more “matter” of another kind. But it could be something quite different, like tension of a large-dimensional brane across which gravity operates. Or gravity itself may be a dimension, after all, gravity has never been unified with the standard model. There is evidence for a gravitational scalar in intergalactic space (e.g. HI gas bleeding away from galaxies like NGC 3628), as well as within elliptical galaxies and globular clusters, where stars appear to mingle ambiently as though they are gravitationally detached from eachother. Any such gravitational scalar would likely have dimensional origins, and would immediately increase the total gravity in play without any need for “dark matter”.
All this aside, the misrepresentation here is when the researchers describe it as a “direct detection”. It isn’t. The most likely missing matter, it seems to me, is between the ears.
Faux Science Slayer says:
“jht isn’t a physicist and his website is full of pictures”.
Yep, I am pretty sure I pointed that out in my post… I’m glad you enjoyed the pictures.
I really had no idea that people regard “the big bang theory” as a hoax. There’s a whole of cross-referenced observations and evidence to accurately date the age of the universe (13.7ish billion years — I don’t remember the exact number) and a whole lot of maths and experimental observations (again, cross-referenced and validated) to back up many of the claims of modern Cosmology. You know, stuff along the lines of “well, if this were true then we’d find THIS” and lo and behold, they find that bit of evidence, right where they expect to find it. At this point its a pretty large inductive chain of knowledge. You are free to poke holes in it, but bear in mind that a competing theory has to also take into account all of the predictions and observations made in the service of the theory you are seeking to replace. I don’t see anything of the sort on your site. Just saying.
I certainly invite anyone who’s interested to have a look at both our sites.
This conversation has got me thinking that I might be on the wrong side of this whole climate thing… Anyway, off to finish reading this fine book.
Looks like the site ate my last reply… I’ll try this again.
Yes, I am not a physicist. I don’t even play one on TV. I have a BFA degree. I have a website – its got pictures on it. I’m glad FauxScienceSlayer enjoyed them enough to keep a screenshot.
I invite any interested parties to have a look at both of our sites.
Now to get back to reading this delightful book.
Just a thought. We humans cannot hear certain sounds that a dog can hear. How do we know those sounds exist if we do not have actual evidence via our own ears?
Thanks Hans F for the link above:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=AS12005.pdf
An excellent read, and I especially liked his final sentence:
I would like to express my sincere admiration for those young researchers who dare follow their curiosity and who publish their non-conforming findings even though this may put their careers at risk.
I recommend everyone on this thread thoroughly read his summary conclusions in Section 17, quite intriguing…
The abstract reads thus:
Abstract: The current standard model of cosmology (SMoC) requires The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem to be true according to which two types of dwarf galaxies must exist: primordial dark-matter (DM) dominated (type A) dwarf galaxies, and tidal-dwarf and ram-pressure-dwarf (type B) galaxies void of DM. Type A dwarfs surround the host approximately spherically, while type B dwarfs are typically correlated in phasespace.
Type B dwarfs must exist in any cosmological theory in which galaxies interact. Only one type of dwarf galaxy is observed to exist on the baryonic Tully-Fisher plot and in the radius-mass plane. The Milky Way satellite system forms a vast phase-space-correlated structure that includes globular clusters and stellar and gaseous streams. Other galaxies also have phase-space correlated satellite systems. Therefore, The Dual Dwarf Galaxy Theorem is falsified by observation and dynamically relevant cold or warm DM cannot exist.
It is shown that the SMoC is incompatible with a large set of other extragalactic observations. Other theoretical solutions to cosmological observations exist. In particular, alone the empirical mass-discrepancy— acceleration correlation constitutes convincing evidence that galactic-scale dynamics must be Milgromian.
Major problems with inflationary big bang cosmologies remain unresolved.
Dark Matter: Does not interact with Electro Magnetism but does with gravity. Self Annialates: it, is it’s own anti-particle and may release a photon in the process, it “talks” to the Standard (particle) Model.
There is a ‘state-of-the-hunt’ presentation gven at Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics by Astro-Physcist Dr. Greg Dobler. It’s free, it lasts about an hour and you can watch it at this link (You may have to copy it into your browser).
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/rm/qttv.html
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/
As for Dark Energy….they apparently have no clue what it is nor how to relate it to standard nor non-standard particle physics. Can’t be tied into forces of nature in any way. It’s a negative pressure and most definately exists.
Watched a free presentation a couple of weeks ago on the hunt for Dark Matter by Dr. Greg Dobler given as a chalk talk at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP). It is free and online for the general public and it is laymans level presentation. The link is below. What they think they know about Dark Matter is that it does not interact with Electro Magnetism, it does interact with gravity, it self annialates itself releasing a photon, it talks to the ‘standard model’ of particle physics at the weak force level. Check it out. Lasts about an hour and is quite interesting.
http://online.kitp.ucsb.edu/online/friends/dobler/rm/qttv.html
pat says: “11 July: NZ Herald: Kieran Campbell: ‘Abrupt increase’ in CO2 absorption slowed global warming. Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems….”
They’ve been making this up as they go, and this is their latest lie to cover up the fact that the hoax is failing badly. They’re admitting ignorance of the full CO2 cycle (which underestimates volcanic emissions by two orders of magnitude.)
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:03 pm
———————————————–
James, what if the big-bang-theory wasn’t true? Not a hoax. Just not the right answer. What if the universe was 7,324,194 billion years old and we could only “see” 13.7 billion years of it.
Well, I can tell you what the answer would be. Denial.
kuhnkat says:
July 11, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Let’s all make up stuff with virtually no grounding in science or reality.
Indeed that is what many commenters are doing.
When one reads most of the comments one is struck with the low level of scientific literacy. Modern cosmology is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. There was a time when every generally educated person had a basic understanding of the science of the day. This is no longer the case, or is the problem the level of education?
When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here, one wonders if the often repeated saying that the blogs [and in particular WUWT – the ‘best science blog’] serve as valuable secondary peer-review has any truth to it. No wonder that many sites view WUWT with disdain considering the nonsense most commenters here come up with. I have referred to the lectures on cosmology given here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology
Read them and think about what you read, and learn.
Leif, I didn’t realize you were a comedienne!!
” Modern cosmology is one of the greatest achievements of mankind.”
And it can’t even answer my phone for me.
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.”
I love this statement. I imagine myself getting bigger over time. It is not noticiable because it is occurring in everything around me but I am a giant in the future. I will grow until dark matter reaches for me.
Sure they have found something, but they really don’t know what they have found. They have an observation, and are trying to force-fit it into their theory. Does not compute. You can make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate.
I fear with many of the comments to this story we undermine our collective credibility as ‘skeptical thinkers’.
The story of dark matter is far removed from the sensationalist, politicized, modeled, restructured stories we get flooded with in the climate debate.
In the mainstream media, dark matter often summed up more or less as a ‘fudge factor that cosmologists use to explain things about the universe that they don’t understand’.
But the reality is far different. Jan Hendrick Oort first noted in 1932 that stars at the periphery of observed galaxies orbited the galaxy far more quickly than physics would indicate was possible. Then Vera Rubin presented a paper in 1980, with many more far more precise measurements of many galaxies showing the same thing.
We all understand that an object orbiting close to the center of mass will move more quickly than one orbiting further from that center. However, Rubin’s work showed that a velocity curve plotted from the center of a galaxy eventually flattens out and the more distant objects orbit at the same velocity as those much closer to the galaxy center. (The original article I read on this had nice illustrations with the curve superimposed outward from the center of a picture of a galaxy, but this curve in Wikipedia illustrates the point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve )
At the simplest level, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. With our current understanding of physics, there MUST be a lot more matter (ie mass) in each galaxy than we can currently detect.
2. Or, our understanding of physics (ie gravity) is flawed.
And, surprisingly enough, Vera Rubin accepts the latter conclusion.
Gravitational lensing would appear to be a reasonably well observed phenomenon, and it seems likely these scientists are applying that knowledge in a logical manner.
To invoke Occam’s razor still further, I like George E. Smith thoughts in his comments here; July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm . There are undoubtedly gigantic numbers of ‘lost’ atoms wandering in all areas of space, and no doubt many of them are undetectable. To take it a little further, there are likely huge numbers of lost planets and other similar bodies wandering in space, and these are objects we can only now detect at intergalactic distances when they are conveniently orbiting a visible star.
Acceptance of ‘gravitational’ laws also means the ‘filament’ theory makes perfect sense. Objects of any mass passing between two gravitational ‘pulls’ (ie two galaxies) will be have more chance of slowing and ‘lingering’ or being captured in that vicinity. This would explain a flaw in the thinking of those who expect dark matter to ‘be everywhere’ and proclaim that they have been unable to detect it in our immediate vicinity.
ian says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Sure they have found something, but they really don’t know what they have found. They have an observation, and are trying to force-fit it into their theory. Does not compute. You can make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate.
No. You will not be scientifically accurate nor event worth the term “scientific”.
This is a common misconception of people used to video games and virtual reality.
Hard science is the study of the reality we live in, and it progresses in steps: 1)we observe, 2) we theorise and predict further phenomena which when found validate the theory. This is where this paper is now, it is validating the prevailing theory. Not any random fantasies of theories.
Theories, when successful, are a way of economically encapsulating all the known data on a subject. This means that if a new and better theory appears, it has first to accommodate all these data. Take the geocentric theory of the solar system. It accumulated and parametrized a lot of data with the epicycles. Was it superseded with the heliocentric? Sure, because the heliocentric has less parameters and more predictions BUT, and it is a big but , when you go to the heliocentric and change the coordinate system to geocentric, the epicycles are there in all their glory, because they were a parametrisation of data, and it could not be otherwise.
The present General Relativity astrophysics model of the universe might be superseded by a more general and more predictive theory, BUT it will encapsulate as a parametrization of the data, the present theory.
Thus you cannot make up any story you like about what they have found and be just as “scientifically” accurate. . Science is not science fiction.
anna v,
you might be more convincing if cosmology didn’t require 3 or more mutually exclusive factors to explain the observations!! Seems that number keeps going UP as more observations are made.
Furthermore, in follow up to my comment above, I feel we show great disrespect by responding to such detailed work with snark and ignorance.
There is no likelihood of hidden agendas here, and no indication of political and ideological influences at work.
This is simply science being done as it should be done. These good people have researched, published, and now await legitimate scientific criticism and further research which will either validate or contradict their findings.
Just as my being inquisitive and skepticism of Global Warming/Cooling by “Leading Scientists” led me to this site, those same qualities led me to doubt the Dark Matter Theory and led me to another “Denier” site concerning the cosmos. For those who are interested, check this site out:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/08/23/preface/
Many discredited scientists support the alternate theories of space/star formation and Dark Matter to them doesn’t exist. Enjoy!
Andrew Krause says:
July 11, 2012 at 8:18 pm
“No, matter stayed where it was, it is space itself [what is between particles of matter] that is expanding. Matter does not stream away from anything.”
I love this statement. I imagine myself getting bigger over time. It is not noticiable because it is occurring in everything around me but I am a giant in the future. I will grow until dark matter reaches for me.
I would also love to think that the expansion of space is the reason for my expanding waistline. Unfortunately, gravity is strong enough to prevent expansion of anything smaller that a cluster of galaxies.
George E. Smith;
July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Hi George:
I think he reason that it is not accepted as ordinary matter, is that what you describe would behave like massive cold dust, obscuring the galaxies behind it even though not emitting any radiation itself. This paper could not have been written in this case because there would not be light penetrating to measure the gravitational lensing.
Anna V.,
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
You see folks if you don’t believe the established science theory you are labeled a denier, uneducated or outright stupid….. I’m starting to believe this is becoming the wrong site for me to continue to expand my knowledge because of the overwhelming mantra of zealot believers. Sound Familiar????? Big Bang has become just as much of a religion as Global warming ever was. Challenge it and expect to be insulted..
Alexander Feht says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Everything is in the end checked with experiments and observations and fail if they don’t match. The paper of this topic is about the observational validation of the equations. Furthermore, mathematics is the language of science. It is very possible that you do not understand mathematics and therefore have a hard time understanding the science. Fortunately there are many physicists that understand the language and can translate it just for you. But your understanding then depends on your willingness [and ability] to listen and make an effort. I see no such effort in your comment.
A quote from Leif Svagaard for most of us to contemplate:
When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here, one wonders if the often repeated saying that the blogs [and in particular WUWT – the ‘best science blog’] serve as valuable secondary peer-review has any truth to it. No wonder that many sites view WUWT with disdain considering the nonsense most commenters here come up with.
Remind him about it when this latest “first proof” of dark matter’s existence will be disposed of.
“There is no “direct detection” of anything here,”
there is no direct detection of anything anywhere.
pkatt says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:42 pm
Big Bang has become just as much of a religion as Global warming ever was. Challenge it and expect to be insulted…
A successful challenge involves a clear understanding of what is being challenged. And a better explanation of data already collected [or more data]. Once toy have those things you can challenge. Just saying that you don’t believe it is not a challenge. It tells more about you than about the topic.
“At the simplest level, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. With our current understanding of physics, there MUST be a lot more matter (ie mass) in each galaxy than we can currently detect.
2. Or, our understanding of physics (ie gravity) is flawed.”
One “observation” two theories. Note that the observation cant tell you which to decide is true.
Yes. this is actually the fate of all theory since all theory is under determined by the ‘evidence’.
And theory is all we have.
Alexander Feht says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:48 pm
“When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here, one wonders if the often repeated saying that the blogs [and in particular WUWT – the ‘best science blog’] serve as valuable secondary peer-review has any truth to it. No wonder that many sites view WUWT with disdain considering the nonsense most commenters here come up with.”
Remind him about it when this latest “first proof” of dark matter’s existence will be disposed of.
Your comment proves my point much better than I could have done.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Yes. this is actually the fate of all theory since all theory is under determined by the ‘evidence’.
And theory is all we have.
But many theories are supported by a lot of evidence. Another way to put this: A scientific theory is our understanding [and description] of a large body of evidence. A shorthand, if you will. No theory = no undrstanding.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Indeed that is what many commenters are doing.
When one reads most of the comments one is struck with the low level of scientific literacy. Modern cosmology is one of the greatest achievements of mankind. There was a time when every generally educated person had a basic understanding of the science of the day. This is no longer the case, or is the problem the level of education?
When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here, one wonders if the often repeated saying that the blogs [and in particular WUWT – the ‘best science blog’] serve as valuable secondary peer-review has any truth to it. No wonder that many sites view WUWT with disdain considering the nonsense most commenters here come up with. I have referred to the lectures on cosmology given here http://www.leif.org/EOS/Cosmology
Read them and think about what you read, and learn.
===============
Leif,
If you have all the answers, please list them now.
If not, piss off and I’ll work around the loss.
I’m not going anywhere.
Leif,
The first of my comments that you answered to was a quote from Tesla.
The second of my comments that you answered to was a quote from yourself.
You made my day!
Pay attention if you don’t want to make your cat laugh again.
P.S.
I think I am much too polite to you, Leif Svalgaard, after all you have said here.
But I am not Willis Eschenbach, and I will not stoop to your level.
Don’t forget to apologize to “most commenters here” (quoting your own substandard English) when this “Filament of Imagination” shall disappear from the scientific horizon, as many other “proofs” of the Dark Matter did already.
Real answers please. What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
It sounds like these scientist have more closely observed an effect. Many different causes can have a similar effect. We have yet to observe the cause here, our instruments are to crude.
Alexander Feht says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Anna V.,
Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
No matter whose quote it is, is is wrong ( after all I am a scientist and therefore a skeptic) . It might be correct if one started with“Some of today’s scientists . Physics is not a religion and Tesla is not one of its popes.
It is true that many more people are now studying and working in physics, and a lot of them are mathematically inclined and some of them have small contact with data, nevertheless, what Leif said at Leif Svalgaard on July 11, 2012 at 9:48 pm, is true:
Another way to put this: A scientific theory is our understanding [and description] of a large body of evidence. A shorthand, if you will. No theory = no understanding.”
A theory is a descriptive language, a mathematical language. Theorists try to encapsulate all known data within one mathematical framework, those are the physicists among them., and the language can be superseded but not destroyed, because the data are there and are the lynch pin of the structure. Theorists playing with mathematics are just mathematicians.
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:51 pm
“There is no “direct detection” of anything here,”
there is no direct detection of anything anywhere.
———————————————————
Silly Mr Mosher,
Senario one… A wave crashes into a sand castle and destroys it. My eyes observe this and deductive reason determines that the wave was the cause of the sandcastles demise.
Senario two… A sandcastle is obliterated right in front of me, by what I cannot see. It just disentgrates. By observing how the sandcastle is destroyed I create one of many posssible theories of what destroyed it.
This post is more like senario two, then senario one.
Sorry Leif, I intended to educate myself from your PDF link but only got a 404 Error,
However, I found this at Thunderbolts.info which has a host of information, but alas, not accepted by concensus astronomers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Certain concepts, like redshift and gravity, are fundamental to the Big Bang hypothesis. According to theory, light shifts toward the red end of the spectrum because an object is moving away. Objects interpreted to be at great distances move away faster than objects nearer to Earth, leading to the idea that the Universe is expanding.
Notwithstanding the problems associated with redshift, previous Picture of the Day articles about WMAP, galaxy clusters, and gravity-only cosmology have elucidated a force extant in the Universe exerting an attractive power 46 orders of magnitude greater than gravity: electric filaments in space. Each “puzzling” discovery by research scientists reinforces the tenets of plasma cosmology and serves to differentiate it from the imprecise predictions of consensus models.
Attractive forces exerted by electrified plasma contained in the twisting filaments of Birkeland currents dominate the Universe. They circulate in a cosmic circuit that flows into our field of view and then out into the void with long-range attraction between them. Therefore, the most probable “Great Attractors” are those filaments of electrified plasma with billions-of-trillion-times more intense fields of influence than gravity.
No doubt the Universe is larger than that which we can observe at this moment: more sensitive tools continue to reveal greater depths. Out of those depths rise inconceivable electrical energies. It is there we should look for explanations and not to centuries-old hypotheses conceived in a time when none of today’s observations were possible.
Stephen Smith ” (from picture of the day archives)
I thought with all of this scientific discussion going on, I might be able to slip my little questions and get a clear answer from a a really well-educated (scientifically), intelligent and nice person.
My questions were (are still) :-
1. Why, after the BB, didn’t the universe stop expanding.
2. Why after the BB, didn’t it even slow down?
3. Why after the BB, is it still accelerating?
3.1 To this last one I’ve had time to think of a corollary, which is:-
As the universe is said to be still accelerating, where is the accelerating energy coming from,
and as it’s said to be accelerating in the face of dark matter,
where is that accelerating energy coming from?
…..but no answer came.
Out there, in the hinterlands of science, among all of those millions on uncounted scientists, surely there must be one, just one, who can answer my simple questions!
Is the dark matter, darker than we thought?
Steven Mosher says: July 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm
….since all theory is under determined by the ‘evidence’.
Hi Steven
I nearly read that as ‘all theory is undermined by the evidence’
Cranks or scientists?
WIMPs or MACHOs?
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/eaa-wimps-machos.pdf
On more serious matter:
How is your spectral analysis progressing?
You said there may be some surprises there (cranks are always one step ahead) looking forward to see the results.
I am aghast at the vitriol being hurled at this paper and at those who have provided explanations and links to background information. At least when the “there’s no such thing as back radiation” crowd come out of the woodwork, they in general have explanations to support their opinions that can be discussed with some level of logical discourse. That some proponents of this nonsense continue to believe it even when their most erstwhile arguments have been exposed as illogical and unsupportable is frustrating. But this…. this makes me both sad and angry.
The theory behind the existance of dark matter isn’t hard to understand. The methods and data explained in this paper are not all that exotic and hardly unreasonable, and the researchers have, as I understand it, disclosed both methods and data. If armchair science critics are so certain that it is invalid, then let’s see a logical explanation instead of snide remarks. I’ve seen well founded reasoning and background information from Leif and George and Anna…. and nothing but snide insinuations and innuendo from the detractors. If all you folks have got is mud slinging to back you up, then please, go away.
I’m going to read Leif links and if something doesn’t make sense to me, I’ll post a question. But throwing mud at every science paper that comes out because we’ve been conditioned to accept the worst due to the climate science debacle is of little value to the discussion, and it certainly isn’t science.
davidmhoffer,
you have an interesting way of supporting BB theory. Because the authors disclose their data, methods, and logic it should be respected. Well, why would I respect anyone who simply believes what their boss tells them and works to advance the bosses career to ride his coattails??
Another interesting paper is coming out on red shit:
http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf
Apparently it is being seen and measured with laser driven plasmas. We will see how the Consensus treats that paper and its authors.
I would also point you to work such as this on the serious deficincies in BB theory:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2546
David says:
July 11, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Scenario two… A sandcastle is obliterated right in front of me, by what I cannot see. It just disentgrates. By observing how the sandcastle is destroyed I create one of many posssible theories of what destroyed it.
This post is more like scenario two, then senario one.
One can always reinvent the wheel.
In our civilization we have managed to progress a lot and have a scientific knowledge described by current theories in the language of mathematics that are continually reevaluated against the data.
The time when a falling apple or a brimming bathtub allowed for alternate theories is way past., at least as long as we do not destroy our civilization.
At the moment there are not many possible theories to explain dark matter.
Dark matter is necessary for the prevailing theory, which is General Relativity, and the universe we observe can be described mathematically using elementary particle theories in conjunction with GR.
It is not enough to handwave theories around that might explain dark matter but leave grand holes in the rest of our physics understanding. Any alternate theory has to accommodate all the data, from the particle standard model to the big bang ( as shorthands for data). I do not know of one.
And as for Steven’s comment, in a sense it is true.
We each of us sit in our head and observe the world around us. We know it by proxy par excellence. Have you considered that everything you experience might be a construct of your imagination? 🙂 a grand dream, including this comment?
Steve from Rockwood says:
James, what if the big-bang-theory wasn’t true? Not a hoax. Just not the right answer. What if the universe was 7,324,194 billion years old and we could only “see” 13.7 billion years of it?
Interesting question. The easy answer is to say, I welcome any theory as long as it fits the facts, and is the truth.
The harder answer is to say, well, there is a LOT of evidence for the age of the universe to be rather precisely calculated to 13.75 billion years old. Given the relative proportions of the light elements (hydrogen, helium, deuterium, and lithium) which are in exact agreement with a hot dense state of a big bang, the relative scale of the structures that we can see in the map of the cosmic microwave background radiation (about 300,000 light years across, which corresponds exactly to the age of the universe when it would have to become transparent to radiative fields like gravity (since gravity moves at the speed of light, the largest such structure at the time would be 300,000 light years across)), and the relative proportions of the heavier elements (carbon, oxygen, and so on) which have to be created IN stars, and the even heavier elements (iron on up) that can only be created in super nova explosions, and the known age and sequence of the observable stars, we know with a high degree of precision that the universe is 13.75 billion years old, and the solar system and the earth are around 4.5 billion years old. Any older or younger and there wouldn’t be the same ratio of elements. Then there’s the cosmological constant (or the dark energy of empty space) and the observed expansion rate of the universe. If the dark energy level were lower, the universe would have stopped accelerating (or at least be slowing down), and if it were any higher, things like galaxies and stars and planets, and us, wouldn’t be here. And that the theoretical rate of expansion of a universe with a dark energy level like ours corresponds pretty much exactly to the observed density of space that it would be at the age of 13.75 billion years old.
You see, they came at the question from a number of different experimental angles, and the answer always comes out the same…
So, any competing theory has to take into account all of these observations and make sense of them all. That’s one of the wonderful things about Cosmology… every experiment seems poised to tear the theoretical underpinnings of the science apart. This isn’t mathematical navel gazing… we built a 17 mile diameter particle collider — the most complex thing mankind has ever built — just to look for the particle that is the force carrier of the Higgs field, a thing which you might not even believe exists. And if they don’t 100% confirm that they’ve found it, they get to shred the Standard Model and have to come up with something better. I love that kind of science.
James,
do you have ANY idea the number of ASSUMPTIONS you had to make to write your seemingly detailed explanation of the age of the universe and how it works?? It is really baffling how people can be so convinced by details based on imagination.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:57 pm
It tells more about you than about the topic.
You know very little of me except that I think you are often full of it and subject to fits of hubris. I on the other hand have been reading solarcycle 24 for years as well as WUWT and know what a bully you can be if anyone dares to go against your organized scientific religion. I cannot wait for the day you are proven wrong, but I doubt you will have the grace or humility to admit you were wrong. You are just another consensus driven scientist and quite frankly, I do not have the time, nor do I intend to put in the effort to argue with you. Live in your bubble, whether it be Earth’s, the solar systems, the galaxy’s or the one you deny for the universe. The Voyager probes are leaving our lovely bubble, lets see if they run into your expanding space or dark matter.. I’m betting they wont. Until then, you keep using your strawman arguments and argumentum ad hominem tactics because the more you do it, the more people will see you for what you really are.
On another note, just about every month a new story appears that challenges the consensus and standard cosmological simulations.. Take this one for example: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2012/19/full/ .. and I quote “The trouble is, the arc shouldn’t exist.” .. But there it is. So yes, it ticks me off to no end when I hear that old tired mantra of settled science.
Steven Mosher says: July 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm
I believe we are in agreement then, Steve?
We don’t demand that discussion and publication must exclusively be on the basis of someone’s special definition of hard, physical evidence, do we?
Anna V,
Good scientists fit theories to facts. If a theory doesn’t fit a single well-known fact, it is worth nothing. There are many well-known facts contradicting the Big Bang theory, and not a single confirmed, unequivocal fact confirming the existence of the “dark matter.”
Postmodern “consensus scientists” search for facts that fit the theories that feed them (or invent them), ignoring facts that contradict them. Hence “filaments of dark matter,” which are much more far-fetched than Martian canals. You seem to be comfortable in this company of conformists.
I’d prefer to be in Tesla’s company. Alas, he is dead — he died a pauper, betrayed by America and the whole world, the same world that owes him its very survival.
I don’t think you deserve uttering his name.
It used to be called “missing matter”, but the grants dried up and then they invented “dark matter”.
‘Einstein’s Telescope: The Hunt for Dark Matter and Dark Energy in the Universe (2009)’ by Evalyn Gates describes the gravitational lensing method as a tool she and her fellow researchers had been using for some time, apparently very effectively. As you may see from the publication date, three years before the paper now being greeted with either huzzas or raspberries; the method was used to get a reasonable map of dark matter.
I’m shocked at how dumb most of the comments here have been, or have displayed fruitcake thinking. I always read WUWT and have agreed with most of the comments on so-called Climate Change’, regarding myself as a sceptic. Now, though, I shall be careful about accepting what is posted here on climate if the postings on dark matter are the true standard of intelligence of posters.
You simply cannot say ‘Oh, but they are all ‘scientists’ and so just as lying and evil as ‘climate scientists”. That is the old anti egg head prejudice, as bad as racism, rearing up yet again. I used to read loads of science fiction books where the stupid red necks rose up and exterminated the egg head scientists because they were blamed for everything bad that had ever happened, due to their ‘meddling with Nature’. Many of the comments here read like what you might hear from someone having a distinctly puce neck…
I have a mere Ph.D in Psychology so I freely admit to not having specialised expertise in astrophysics or cosmology but, as might be expected, I know a fair bit about people. In addition, I taught research methods for twenty years and had to batter out of the brains of thousands of young people similar misapprehensions about science as have been show here. If you catch them young enough they can be saved!
Considering that human knowledge of gravitation can not accurately account for more than two objects without heuristically fudging the equations (three body problem), I find it the height of hubris when highly educated folk (who know their gravitational theories can not account for “varying differentials of the Moon’s orbit”) think that because the galaxies move in ways their models don’t explain very well, that it must be attributable to dark matter and energy that make up to 96% of the universe. Talk about a colossal fudge factor. How about a little occams’ razor and honesty?
1. We (humanity) really do not know how gravity works. We have models and theories galore that attempt to model the effects of gravity, but the mechanism by which it functions is unknown.
2. Despite this slight inability to deal with three objects interacting gravitationally with precise accuracy (a galaxy constains slightly more than three objects), a large portion of the mathematics, physics, and cosmology communities are ready to declare that their gravity models are fine, good enough to declare that 90% (or more) of the galaxy is composed of undetectable stuff…dark matter, energy, super condensed fudge, whatever, which has to be there so their models will be able to agree with observation. Models are supposed to resemble reality, not the other way around.
When you can’t account for 90% of anything in order for you theory to be accurate, your theory isn’t working very well.
Christian Takacs says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:30 am
Considering that human knowledge of gravitation can not accurately account for more than two objects without heuristically fudging the equations (three body problem),
Another example of the low level of knowledge most commenters here have. That there is no closed simple equation for more than two bodies, does not mean that we cannot accurately account for such objects. The equations can easily be solved numerically:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons
“The JPL HORIZONS on-line solar system data and ephemeris computation service provides access to key solar system data and flexible production of highly accurate ephemerides for solar system objects ( 587479 asteroids, 3153 comets, 176 planetary satellites, 8 planets, the Sun, L1, L2, select spacecraft, and system barycenters”
Dr Anthony Fallone says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:06 am
I’m shocked at how dumb most of the comments here have been, or have displayed fruitcake thinking. I always read WUWT and have agreed with most of the comments on so-called Climate Change’, regarding myself as a sceptic. Now, though, I shall be careful about accepting what is posted here on climate if the postings on dark matter are the true standard of intelligence of posters.
With this I wholeheartedly agree. Let the people referred to come back and further demonstrate the truth of the above sentiment.
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
We are told, and easily accept this, that if our object was ejected violently in a perfect vacuum, and free of gravity it would never slow down, it would just continue on at the same speed, forever.
How is it then that the particles ejected during the big bang, do not slow down, do not continue at the same speed forever, but actually accelerate. What is the accelerating force?
Perhaps a clue here…
Photonic Laser Thruster Makes Its Debut
http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=28582
All we need to do is give real mass, size and spin to the photon for it to provide the necessary force to accelerate the galaxies away from the centre of the cosmos. Maybe light is the new dark?
Tenuk says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:39 am
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
We are told, and easily accept this, that if our object was ejected violently in a perfect vacuum, and free of gravity it would never slow down, it would just continue on at the same speed, forever.
The difficulty here is that the ‘objects’ of the Big Bang were NOT ejected violently. They actually don’t move [except for small local velocities caused by mutual interactions] at all. The expansion of space takes place with or without any objects in it.
Leif,
“The expansion of space takes place with or without any objects in it.”
Here and in my ignorance I thought the CONSENSUS view was that expansion occurred BETWEEN objects such as Galaxies!!! Maybe I should view your Cosmology presentation and see what a heretic you really are!!!
Yes I realize the guy in the wheelchair thinks the expansion is homogeneous which means he also is somewhat heretical!!
iamreplete says:
July 11, 2012 at 11:39 pm
Out there, in the hinterlands of science, among all of those millions on uncounted scientists, surely there must be one, just one, who can answer my simple questions!
All your questions are answered in the wiki article of the big bang. If you cannot understand it, maybe something simpler, as an introductory physics course might be recommended.
Usually simple questions have complicated answers, not suitable for a blog discussion.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 1:39 am
Alas, he is dead — he died a pauper, betrayed by America and the whole world, the same world that owes him its very survival.
Not whole world, the small nation of his origins does as much as it can to keep his name and memory alive. His work is studied in detail at Electro-technical faculty in Belgrade, the labs where practical experiments are carried are overlooked by his statue, there is museum dedicated to Tesla and his inventions, Belgrade Airport is named after him, so visitors all over the world are reminded of Nikola Tesla’s name.
There is some more info on my website:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Nikola%20Tesla.htm
Here you can hear N.Y mayor LaGuardia’s eulogy at Tesla’s funeral
http://www.teslasociety.ch/info/ton/Fiorello_La_Guardia_uber_Tesla.wma
And much more on website:
http://www.teslasociety.com/index.html
anna v says:
July 11, 2012 at 11:50 pm
====================================================
Dear anna,thank you for your partial response, And yes, I appreciate that science has advanced a great deal. One such example is Leif Svalgaard says:July 12, 2012 at 3:55 am.
And yet, at larger scales we simply can not use the same maths, based on the SAME OBSERVABLES. Hence some UNOBSERVED SOMETHING, exerting some force over 90 percent greater then all OBSERVABLES, is operating on these vast scales, but is apparently absent on smaller solar system scales as in the post by Leif which I referenced, where that 90% of something is not necessary to explain the OBSERVABLES Leif describes. So how does the same force, gravity, operating on solar system size scales where dark matter must be absent, (ie, not needed to explain the very complex relationships Leif’s link expounds on) suddenly operate differently, just because the scale has changed? Is dark matter absent within solar systems, but only present between galaxies? Or is there a different force operating on vast galatic scales, which does not operate on smaller scales, just as the atomic force operates on a molecular scale, but is not involved in the solar mechanics Leif discusses?
Let me try my sand castle assertion/question this way. An egg is sitting on a counter with a slight inclination. The egg is on the uphill side of an empty tissue box. Anna opens a window, a gust of wind moves the empty tissue box, the egg rolls down the incline, falls 32″, and shatters on a ceramic floor. Now a detailed mathmatical explanation of all the physics involved can explain all that is observed.
We can also run a film of the event backwards, The same maths reversed, can elso mathmaticaly explain every event, but, even though the math is 100 percent correct, it is still 100 percent wrong.
Just because the math is correct, does not mean nature obeys it.
My simple point is that when trying to quantify something where we can only see the effect,(say the answer is 10) but not the object causing said effect, we do not know if 10 was reached by a series of math and numbers from a known force, gravity, or a different force reaching “10” differently. BTW, yes gravity is a known, but not an easily explained force.
Anna, you also said…
“And as for Steven’s comment, in a sense it is true.
We each of us sit in our head and observe the world around us. We know it by proxy par excellence. Have you considered that everything you experience might be a construct of your imagination? 🙂 a grand dream, including this comment?”
—————————————————————————————————
Smiles, yes, but still in science we detect cause and affect via instuments which observe. thus my eyes see the “water” which destroys the sand castle, thus the water is detected. We have yet to detect either gravity (we only see its effect) or “dark matter”, we only see its effect. I maintain our instruments are too crude.
Now when I ask very simple questions, based on cause and effect, the structure of all science, I can only hope for an elevator speech answer. What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into? I really hope for an answer. I see space as a three D constuct of height, width, and depth, each of which are infinite, and when anything else quantifiable is added, time becomes another demension operating within cause and effect principles.
BTW people, ( I do not mean you Anna) stop getting all emotional. It may well be that your answers are simply beyond the comprehension of lay members.
”
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:56 am
Tenuk says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:39 am
Peter Melia says:
July 11, 2012 at 12:18 pm
We are told, and easily accept this, that if our object was ejected violently in a perfect vacuum, and free of gravity it would never slow down, it would just continue on at the same speed, forever.
The difficulty here is that the ‘objects’ of the Big Bang were NOT ejected violently. They actually don’t move [except for small local velocities caused by mutual interactions] at all. The expansion of space takes place with or without any objects in it.
”
Prior to the apparent discovery of an accelerating universe a couple of decades ago, the cosmological question was whether or not there was sufficient mass in the universe to cause a big crunch due to gravitational attraction where everything collapsed back again or whether the universe would simply continue expanding. In either case, it was expected that the expansion we observe would slow down some. Instead, the ‘discovery’ indicated that the universe’s expansion is speeding up.
However, although it has been almost universally accepted, (parallel to AGW concensus guff), there remains a serious possible problem. The detection of this acceleration was by the type Ia supernovae observations which was assumed to be caused by a white dwarf sucking up matter from a companion star until it reached 1.4 solar masses – the limit in size for a white dwarf – beyond which it would collapse, creating an explosion (supernova) of a standard size. This is a questionable assumption and some recent (fall 2010 or 2011) paper(s) have failed to detect sufficient x-ray sources for candidate white dwarfs acreting matter to explain the number of type Ia supernovae. This leads to the prospect of type Ia supernovae primarily being from collisions and that seriously affects the accuracy of the standard explosion size which potentially throws the whole faster expansion idea into doubt.
Human nature being what it is, if faced with ‘dark matter’ , it’s ‘sexier’ to hypothesize about exotic dark matter like particles never before detected or microscopic black holes than it is to hypothesize about a bunch of brown dwarfs, planetoids, asteriods, comets, or interstellar dust bunnies.
Skepticism is important with all science, not just global warming. Elegance is a concept that many physicists think must be part of any accepted theory. The amount of chewing gum, duct tape, bailing wire, and superglue holding modern cosmology together is the antithesis of elegance. If this Higg’s boson discovery is real and if the Higg’s particle actually is responsible for gravity, that could potentially spell the end for the general relativity concept of warping of space and I don’t know what sort of ramifications might come from that.
Peter, you might like to find and read some of the books written by Fulvio Melia. He’s an interesting character (university of arizona astronomer/astrophysicist).
While reading (far too) much of the above the following came to mind. The only things you HAVE to know are how to make enough of a living to stay alive and how to get your taxes done. All the fun parts are optional.
Leif I admire your patience.
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 5:29 am
So how does the same force, gravity, operating on solar system size scales where dark matter must be absent, (ie, not needed to explain the very complex relationships Leif’s link expounds on) suddenly operate differently, just because the scale has changed? Is dark matter absent within solar systems, but only present between galaxies?
There is no indication that gravity works any different on different scales. And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun. Certainly there is dark matter within the galaxies [and not just between them; that is what makes the rotation curve flat. The thing is that the density of dark matter is extremely low, so difficult to observe on the small scale.
I have to say, I am a bit bemused by the onslaught of comments attacking this article. Some folks seem not to appreciate that dark matter is just code for “there is something acting gravitationally in the universe, where no matter can be detected and we don’t know what it is.”
Now what is so hard to accept with that statement?
It really is about distances. Distances translate into time. Each time we peer further into the cosmos we are looking back in time. Each time up our kit we see an older universe.
I can see how earlier parallax type measurements could be replicated but the Caephid variables cannot, however we cross reference with red shift measurements and all is consistent a long way away. Well it would be wouldn’t it.
I am not saying these guys are wrong with their strings and ropes but I cannot take their 3D model on board without some degree of error bar around the distances. A lot of guys on here are skeptical about things they understand, and lots about things they don’t understand. I am curious about lots of things now and my experience with the scientists in AGW has taught me how important it is to question everything.
Vince,
“there is something acting gravitationally in the universe, where no matter can be detected and we don’t know what it is.” Now what is so hard to accept with that statement”
Why yes, there is a HUGE problem with that statement. Your ASSUMPTION that only gravitation could possibly be causing the effect in question.
Leif, If DM tracks the density of “normal” matter ( and some think that normal matter clumps around DM ) then if the universe consists of about 4% normal matter and 25% DM (and 70% dark energy) then wouldn’t one expect that the typical DM density to be about 5 times that of normal matter on average?
Perhaps microlensing will lead to a better understanding of things as we manage to get past the atmospheric lensing difficulties (turbulence). I think we’ve yet to spot our first Oort cloud object in place.
“I would also love to think that the expansion of space is the reason for my expanding waistline. Unfortunately, gravity is strong enough to prevent expansion of anything smaller that a cluster of galaxies.”…We have loosened Orion’s belt
It is unfortunate that the exhilaration and personal accomplishment in these observations and experiments is lost to most commentators. I give Lief, Mosher and Anna much leeway in the tone of their responses. It is easy to say, they observed nothing or the theories are kludged. The complexity of things that are beyond our common senses cannot be dismissed so cavalierly. The work behind the theories is ongoing and should be a source of fascination for everyone interested in how things work.
anna v. et al
I put “scientifically” in quotes to indicate sarcasm. In future, perhaps I should use [sarcasm on]/[sarcasm off]. There is no discipline of science that does not have the same problem as does the particular subset of climate research called “anthropogenic global warming”. There is an existing dogma in every field of research. Science careers are built on pet theories and then codified as [sarcasm on] “facts” [sarcasm off]. And then taught in the universities as “facts”, and then in the grade schools as “facts”. Thus the kids are indoctrinated in the currently prevailing theories and any thinking “outside the box” is not just discouraged, but actively ridiculed and mocked. This is ably demonstrated by AGW, and I find it amusing to see it everywhere I look. I only know a few scientists who truly will consider options “outside the box”.
ian
Re Vince Causey: indeed, I’ve often written about a “gravitational scalar” enabling ambient mixing of stars in elliptical galaxies and globular clusters. So now Leif states “the density of dark matter is extremely low, so difficult to observe on the small scale”. Sounds like much the same thing, actually.
“Vince Causey says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:37 am
I have to say, I am a bit bemused by the onslaught of comments attacking this article. Some folks seem not to appreciate that dark matter is just code for “there is something acting gravitationally in the universe, where no matter can be detected and we don’t know what it is.”
Now what is so hard to accept with that statement?
”
Vince, nobody ever got a research grant – government or otherwise – who concludes that “there is something out there where nothing has been detected and we don’t know what it is” Besides, dark matter, or DM, is a lot shorter than using a whole phrase or some sort of acronym like “tisotwnhbdawdkwii”.
There are other biases that enter into things as well. How many prefer the notion that space itself is expanding rather than the notion that the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is slowing down over time? Hint, most prefer their universal constants to be constant, even though classical electromagnetic theory indicates that the speed of light is related to the permeability and permittivity of the medium in which it is travelling, be it water, air, or empty space.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:27 am
And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun.
Why did you have to say that?
My coffee went all over my keyboard, had to turn of pc and do cleaning and drying.
Never, ever expected to hear anything do funny on a thread of gravity !
Dr Anthony Fallone says:
I’m shocked at how dumb most of the comments here have been, or have displayed fruitcake thinking. I always read WUWT and have agreed with most of the comments on so-called Climate Change’, regarding myself as a sceptic. Now, though, I shall be careful about accepting what is posted here on climate if the postings on dark matter are the true standard of intelligence of posters.
I agree 100% This whole exchange has left me more than a little concerned about the quality of information that I’ve been getting here.
James,
” I agree 100% This whole exchange has left me more than a little concerned about the quality of information that I’ve been getting here.”
Absolutely!!! I recommend that all of you consensus types run away very fast and hide amongst those who are only interested in reinforcing each others ideas so there is no doubt in your world to upset you!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
****
cba says:
July 12, 2012 at 6:38 am
Human nature being what it is, if faced with ‘dark matter’ , it’s ‘sexier’ to hypothesize about exotic dark matter like particles never before detected or microscopic black holes than it is to hypothesize about a bunch of brown dwarfs, planetoids, asteriods, comets, or interstellar dust bunnies.
****
I’d think those were very first things astronomers looked at to try to explain things, and those candidates were found lacking/implausible.
****
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:30 am
I agree 100% This whole exchange has left me more than a little concerned about the quality of information that I’ve been getting here.
****
You’ve got to use your own mental “spam filter”. Some posters here have discredited themselves to the point where I automatically skip over their comments. Unfortunate, but WUWT is dedicated to being an open website, as long as the site policies aren’t violated.
Vince, it is easy to accept that the inferred motions of galaxies don’t agree with the predictions of the standard model. It’s much harder to accept that the problem is solved by calculating where some matter “should” be, drawing a target around the empty space, and claiming the target is filled with otherwise undetectable and unpredicted clumps of particles that don’t fit anywhere else in the theory.
Leif,
“And that is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that we indeed cannot see it.”
The fact that it is invisible is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that you can’t see it? That’s an unusual logical construct.
“We can, however, measure the gravitational effects from Dark Matter which shows it is there, just like in the 19th century we hadn’t seen the planet Neptune, but we knew it was there because of its gravitational effects on Uranus. We could even from those effects calculate where Neptune should be, and that is indeed where we found it. Such is the power of science.”
Or, you could be wrong. Place your bets…
So, can we at least get agreement that nothing has actually been “detected” but it has rather been “inferred” from general relativity and how we “believe”, based upon theory, that gravity, light defraction, space expansion and a variety of other factors are working? If we knew all there is to know about all of these issues it would be different, but since we do not, any amount of healthy skepticism should leave some doubt of what is causing the effect being observed. Otherwise we are treating our theories as dogma just like the AGW crowd.
Name calling or snide remarks regarding those who may have read and agree with other potential explanations which obviate the need for dark matter or dark energy is not productive. After all, it is mathmatical models which tell us that there cannot possibly be that much additional baryonic matter out there to answer the riddle of where all the apparent additional mass comes from to create all of the apparent additional gravity. I do not believe anyone has actually hands on inventoried the mass of the universe.
Leif,
Remember that cosmology is a rather esoteric and mathematical field. It is hardly surprising that anonymous laymen display their ignorance. That said, the arrogance of some of these uninformed posters is a bit annoying.
You usually don’t become noticeably agitated and just do your best to give a factual response and refer the uninformed poster to a resource to better educate themselves. (Occasionally tossing in an amusingly sarcastic remark that, while at the expense of the poster, is usually not too severe.)
It seems that lately your patience and good nature have been tested. Remember that for every arrogant know nothing there are many other readers that are trying to educate themselves and are eager to accept a scientific theory that is backed up with testable evidence.
Try to cut the ignorant some slack and don’t condemn all of us that frequent WUWT.
Ahh yes Lancifer, sheer breathtaking ARROGANCE!!!
On the one foot, you tell me I am arrogant and ignorant (absolutely I am ignorant!!!) for questioning the greats like Einstein and others for their work decades and more after it was done. Yet, when I tell yoou that Einstein himslef decided that he made a mistake with the Cosmological Constant you shush me and tell me YOU know better than Einstein!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I’m still trying to figure out just what is actually new about the announcement. Below are some links to other earlier efforts of mapping DM. Evidently, it’s the assumption that the DM observed between the clusters in the filament is not or was not a part of the clusters. Mapping DM distributions using gravitational lensing is not something that is brand new as the first measurements were done around half a dozen years ago.
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/exotic/pr2010026a/
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/dark-matter-map.html
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
Who here does not understand that plasma in space is the only known thing that form filamentary structures? The BB predicts a homogenous distribution of matter, yet the universe is highly filamentary. Only plasma in is known to form filamentary shapes, not gravity.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/22/radio-elliptical/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/solar08/021608_dark_inertia_1.htm
In reality they are observing nothing more than the filamentary aspects of plasma, a scientifically and laboratory demonstrated fact. For over 100 years plasma events in the laboratory have backed up all observations in space, but mainstream astronomy still clings to the ideas of fairy dust and unicorns. This is because plasma physics is not taught in astrophysics classes, even though 99.99% of the universe is in a plasma state. Usually when one decides to study something, a background in the stuff its made of is usually a good idea.
So, we can believe the astronomers and theorists that have no background in plasma physics, or the engineers that work with it on a daily basis. Demonstrated laboratory results or someones idea of how it should be. The choice is yours as to whom you should trust. Physicists with actual laboratory results backing them up or pure theorists who never set foot in the lab.
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-Universe.com
http://www.plasma-universe.com/99.999%25_plasma
****
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 5:29 am
So how does the same force, gravity, operating on solar system size scales where dark matter must be absent, (ie, not needed to explain the very complex relationships Leif’s link expounds on) suddenly operate differently, just because the scale has changed? Is dark matter absent within solar systems, but only present between galaxies?
****
It shouldn’t be surprising that DM wouldn’t be detectable in the solar system. The solar system is a very concentrated volume of regular matter, relative to interstellar space (and despite the fact it’s still mostly empty space). So, in the confined volume of the solar system, regular matter would dominate DM, probably by a vast amount. The point is that regular matter is far thinner in the vast volumes of interstellar/intergalactic space, but DM is prb’ly much more uniform. So, considering the vast, mostly empty (of regular matter) volume in a million-light-year-dia halo around the Milky Way, there could very well still be a 5-1 ratio of DM to regular baryonic matter.
anna v,
“Have you considered that everything you experience might be a construct of your imagination? 🙂 a grand dream, including this comment?”
Yes. And I imagine that I once met you. In Bath. Many years ago. 🙂
James Evans (thrib)
regarding beng says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:33 am
====================================================
Thank you. A logical and reasoned response. (I wish I had thought of that on my own!) So, assuming the gravity of DM, and regular matter are one force, (all the complicated math works out), then this simplfies the mystery., leaving aside dark energy and much other theory.
Since yoou answered that question so well, can you take a stab at my other question…
“Now when I ask very simple questions, based on cause and effect, the structure of all science, I can only hope for an elevator speech answer.
What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
I really hope for an answer. I see space as a three D constuct of height, width, and depth, each of which are infinite, and when anything else quantifiable is added, time becomes another demension operating within cause and effect principles. “
Finally. Dark Matter has achieved equality with unicorns. Look, I can show you a picture…
“James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 10:30 am
anna v,
“Have you considered that everything you experience might be a construct of your imagination? 🙂 a grand dream, including this comment?”
Yes. And I imagine that I once met you. In Bath. Many years ago. 🙂
James Evans (thrib)”
In a world where Schrodinger’s cat is simultaneously dead and alive, perhaps Lord Yabu’s death poem is correct in that “life is but a butterfly’s dream”.
James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 10:30 am
And I imagine that I once met you. In Bath. Many years ago. 🙂
Hi James, a lot of water under the bridge since then 🙂 . I am in a physics mode now :).
How is life?
Anna
For Anna V.
At last, a kind voice in the scientific jungle!
I did indeed take your advice and look at the two links you offered, finding that unfortunately neither answered or even pointed to an answer to my little questions. Thanks anyway for the advice.
You will of course recall my questions, which were:-
My questions were (simplified, are still) :-
1. Why, after the BB, didn’t the universe stop expanding.
2. Why after the BB, didn’t it even slow down?
3. Why after the BB, is it still accelerating?
3.1 As the universe is still accelerating,
where is the accelerating energy coming from,
and as it’s accelerating in the face of dark matter,
where is that additional accelerating energy coming from?
As you said,
“Usually simple questions have complicated answers, not suitable for a blog discussion.”
OK, I accept that my questions are really, really simple, but surely a simple answer could be given?
Thanks anyway.
“””””…..anna v says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:04 pm
George E. Smith;
July 11, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Hi George:
I think he reason that it is not accepted as ordinary matter, is that what you describe would behave like massive cold dust, obscuring the galaxies behind it even though not emitting any radiation itself. This paper could not have been written in this case because there would not be light penetrating to measure the gravitational lensing……””””””
Anna, when Astronomers/Cosmologists talk of “interstellar dust”, I envisage exactly that; dust like blows around in the yard, so it is measurable sized particles of presumably rocklike materials. I assumes it blocks light from behind, in much the same way as desert dust storms do, but on a much larger, but lower particle density scale. Presumably EM radiation, including visible, is either absorbed or scattered, by such particles in rather ordinady mundane ways.
But such particles would contain many atoms, which can interract (thermally) so collisions can occur, and hence EM radiation via a thermal spectrum would be possible.
So my wild guess for an ordinary matter form of dark matter, would not include such dust particles, but strictly isolated atoms, that never collide with anything, so would tend to maintain a zero dipole moment, so couldn’t radiate like a Hertz or Maxwell antenna carrying a varying current (same as accelerated charge).
Now Leif did mention something about DM being low density, and that is why I enquired about the postulated density of DM to see if its low enough for large spaced single atoms.
I have always had a queezy (but not skeptical) feeling about the BB aftermath; particularly the “inflationary” phase. But again, Leif’s comment, of stuff not rushing hither and thither; just the “space” itself (whatever the blazes space is) expanding eases that worry. Maybe the bad word is “bang”; perhaps it was not even a “whoooOOOSH.” Well I do have a fondness for the first
10^-43 seconds after the BB; seems like all the really interesting stuff happened back on those days; “Archeophysics” I call it; really old stuff.
I’m somewhat astonished by all the seeming hostility towards, astronomers, and cosmologists. I can’t think of any group, except you particle physicists, who are able to make so much out of so little. To contemplate what astrophysicists, have been able to glean from that silly electromagnetic radiation spectrum, with nothing but phtons and a few other critters to “look at”, in a vast laboratory, where they can’t reach out and just tweak the knobs. It’s a monumental history of achievement.
Anybody who is not totally freaked out by the Hubble Deep Field Photographs, simply has nothing going on between their ears. I actually pity those folks, who aren’t moved in any way by such incredibility.
I watched one of Brian Greene’s PBS shows last night, about the Einstein inability to combine Gravity/General Relativity, with Electro-Magnetism.
I have to say that Greene’s demonstration (thought experiment) of the vast difference between the puny gravity, and the all powerfull EM forces, was very neat.
He leaped off the top of a tall building, and got accelerated, at something quite close to exactly one (g) on his way to a rendezvous at the center of the earth; but suddenly came to a screeching halt just a few hundred feet below the top of the building, when his shoes got close enough to the sidewalk for the electromagnetic forces, to put gravity in its place, and bring him to ahalt with almost no penetration of the pavement at all; well I’m sure the soles of his shoes squished a bit.
But then he wafted off into string theory; and I just can’t get worked up with the idea, that something; no matter how tiny, that can wigggle, is not somehow assembled out of even tinier components that can move relative to each other. How could a wiggly string be fundamental.
Well I’m sure that the fishes that finally feast off my bones, will be none the worse for wear by the fact, that I never got to understand strings or parallel universes; but I do hope one day to meet some one who freely admits that s/he does understand quantum mechanics.
I guess there is something wrong with me!!
“Anybody who is not totally freaked out by the Hubble Deep Field Photographs, simply has nothing going on between their ears.”
Freaked out? Nope. Awe struck is more like it. Especially when you try and figure out how long such GINORMOUS structures would take to assemble, yet, they had only a few billion years based on their estimated distance!!! How can these “scientists” look at this data and not reconsider their faith in the BB??
Leif said:
“We can, however, measure the gravitational effects from Dark Matter which shows it is there, just like in the 19th century we hadn’t seen the planet Neptune, but we knew it was there because of its gravitational effects on Uranus. We could even from those effects calculate where Neptune should be, and that is indeed where we found it. Such is the power of science.”
The difference is that we haven’t yet found Dark Matter. It’s still just a speculative theory to account for the gravitational discrepancy. And it’s not the only one possible explanation. When astronomers noticed the gravitational perturbation that led them to hypothesize the presence of Neptune, they didn’t assume Neptune was actually there until they found Neptune. But scientists are now claiming Dark Matter exists purely on the basis of the gravitational discrepancy. I think you have to admit that’s a leap of faith, not science. Claiming to have “detected” Dark Matter merely by observing the discrepancy more closely is highly misleading and jumping the gun. There really could be other explanations for the discrepancy, including the possibility that our understanding of gravitation is itself lacking. One can compare this to 19th century scientists claiming that an “ether” must exist, based on their understanding of physics. Sometimes these discrepencies indicate that our understanding of physics is wrong. Dark Matter may turn out to be the 21st century equivalent of an “ether”.
iamreplete says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:43 am
My questions were (simplified, are still) :-
1. Why, after the BB, didn’t the universe stop expanding.
The BB is a model within the theory of General Relativity. In this form, all the energy comes from the initial singularity which gave the bang to space. Did you study the figure on the right in the wiki link? Did you understand the analogy with the balloon surface?
2. Why after the BB, didn’t it even slow down?
If there is enough initial energy, why should it slow down? This particular model accommodates the data. There are other GR models that go from expansion to contraction for example, but the data do not support them at the moment.
3. Why after the BB, is it still accelerating?
The model is constructed to fit the data within GR. Energy conservation is not the simple concept one has from everyday experience . One needs to study the mathematics in a course to really understand this.
3.1 As the universe is still accelerating,
where is the accelerating energy coming from,
and as it’s accelerating in the face of dark matter,
where is that additional accelerating energy coming from?
The model is constructed to fit the data within GR. Energy conservation in GR is not the simple concept one has from everyday experience . One needs to study the mathematics in a course and solve some problems in order to really understand this.
As you said,
“Usually simple questions have complicated answers, not suitable for a blog discussion.”
OK, I accept that my questions are really, really simple, but surely a simple answer could be given?
Simplifying complicated answers does not mean that the answers are simple. They probably are incomprehensible for people who have not put the effort necessary to understand the underlying framework, mathematics in this case.
Thanks anyway.
You are welcome.
beng,
discounting mundane alternatives prematurely is not all that rare. My comment above concerning type Ia supernovae shows one example. It was/is thought that the occurence of collisions is too rare to be the primary cause so it must be accretion from a binary star partner. This should be visible in the x-ray realm and hence falsifiable. there has been a paper (or two or three) two years ago indicating that the number of x-ray sources was insufficient to explain the number as well. I’ve met at least one expert in that field who did not agree with that original concensus. As the scientific drama (scientific method in operation) plays out we will learn more about what’s going on. It may well be that the ‘necessity’ of dark energy to explain the increasing expansion rate of the universe may not actually be a necessity and Einstein’s self admitted ‘biggest blunder’ (cosmological constant) may also become today’s modern day biggest blunder (dark energy) after biting the dust a second time. Then again, there might be a problem with the search for the x-ray sources and virtually Type Ia supernovae are actually caused by exceeding the 1.4 solar mass limit for white dwarf size and a type Ia actually is a very accurate standard candle leaving us with the strange situation of a repulsive force dominating the universe. Then again, Fulvio Melia’s observation that the density of the universe appears to be such that it suggests we are inside the event horizon of the mother of all supermassive blackholes. (given a density of around 6 H per m^3 and a size of around 13.7 b Lyr what is the size of the Schwartzchild radius? – about 13.7 b Lyr).
Vince Causey says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:37 am
I have to say, I am a bit bemused by the onslaught of comments attacking this article. Some folks seem not to appreciate that dark matter is just code for “there is something acting gravitationally in the universe, where no matter can be detected and we don’t know what it is.”
Now what is so hard to accept with that statement?
**********************
What’s hard to accept is the notion that the problem is necessarily “out there”, rather than in our understanding of gravitational physics itself. One gets the sense that DM and DE are inventions designed to perpetuate a broken physics, by presuming that there must be some kind of “thing” out there to account for these gravitational discrepancies, rather than an inadequate gravitational model that has run up against its deficiencies.
davidmhoffer,
I am sad and angry about your giving support to closet Creationists.
Please, think about this article again, and then remember the joke about Texas sharpshooting.
kuhnkat,
It’s a relief to know that there is somebody capable of thinking out there.
People who follow the Scripture (or the textbook script) instead of thinking always accuse og ignorance those they cannot understand.
anna v.,
Should I regard your invitation to read Wikipedia article on Big Bang as an intentional insult?
Or are you really that simple?
George E Smith, Anna, anyone, again,
What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
I really hope for an answer. I see space as a three D constuct of height, width, and depth, each of which are infinite, (so IT can only expand into iself, and IT is already there) and when anything else quantifiable is added, time becomes another demension operating within cause and effect principles. The balloon analogy, like the raisens in bread analogy does nothing for me. Balloons, including the air inside them, like bread, are quantifiable phenomena, subject to cause and effect. How unquantfiable infinite space of nothing except infinite three demensional concept, can move galxies at faster then ligh speed, appears to be rather unreachable.
Kuhnkat,
Why did you jump to the conclusion that I included you in “arrogant” and “uneducated” posters?
Although ending a post with “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA” does make you look kind of kooky.
Brokenyogi,
One would have to throw a lot of babies out with that bath water. Pretty much all of physics as we know it would have to be seriously reconsidered.
The observed movement of galaxies doesn’t fit the current understanding (or misunderstanding, as it may be) of the General Relativity theory. To keep this understanding (or misunderstanding) intact, an assumption is being made that we don’t see more than 90% of the mass of the Universe (which in itself assumes that the mass of the Universe is finite — a very bold assumption, to say the least).
On the basis of this assumption a purely mathematical construct was built, that predicts the existence of particles that cannot be observed, and don’t interact with anything observed, other than gravitationally. Very convenient. The gravitational lensing effect is being used, therefore, to try to support this far-fetched abstraction, called upon to save the theory in the face of reality that doesn’t obey the theory (unscientific approach if there ever was one).
All this is being done to keep alive a Bing Bang theory, a theory with obvious creationist roots, a theory that has been already refuted by observations (for example, by the simple fact that infrared telescopes see massive clusters if galaxies on the edge of visibility, where, according to the same Big bang theory, they had no time to form).
This particular announcement claims to be the first proof of the existence of dark matter. I don’t understand, how otherwise reasonable people, such as David M. Hoffer, can buy this. First of all, this is not the first announcement of this kind. “Proof” of dark matter’s existence, obtained by the same method (gravitational lensing effect) has been all over the news, several times. In each case, it was subsequently conveniently forgotten, because it didn’t hold water.
Furthermore, there are so many other possible explanations for the observed discrepancy that “dark matter hypothesis” becomes just one of many speculations, and one of the most tenuous ones. It has been in the news lately that the amount of brown dwarfs (the stars that we don’t see) is at least 10 times larger that the amount of luminous stars. It has been in the news lately that gigantic non-luminous clouds of hydrogen exist around the galaxies, and that we can see only some of them, when they are back-lit by luminous objects behind them. These are just two of dozens of artifacts that add to the apparent mass of galaxies. Plus, we never know, how many black holes are in the region that we see.
However, the most important mistake, in my view, is to assume that our current understanding of the General Relativity theory is complete and correct. It very well may be that mass affects space and time (time is of essence here!) in such a way that space-time continuum behaves differently in presence of the large accumulation of mass, as opposed to the relatively empty intergalactic space.
Time will tell, who is right, and who is wrong. One thing is sure: narrow-minded pedants, following the “prevailing consensus” to the letter and pointing out Wikipedia articles (of all things, for heaven’s sake!) and college textbooks as authoritative sources of information regarding cosmology, are destined to shame themselves.
That’s Gold, Jerry!! Gold I Tell You, GOLD!! – yes, comedy gold.
“We found what we were looking for, even though we don’t know what it is or ever was.”
“So how do you know you found anything?”
“Because, it was located next to an UnObtainium deposit, just as we suspected”
“Are you sure it wasn’t located next to your research grant requisition forms?”
“DENIER!! DENIER!! We wrote it down, so it’s true. Why are you anti-science?”
“Winner winner, chicken dinner”
Leif,
“We can, however, measure the gravitational effects from Dark Matter which shows it is there, just like in the 19th century we hadn’t seen the planet Neptune, but we knew it was there because of its gravitational effects on Uranus.”
So, scientists knew it was there but couldn’t see it. They therefore concluded that Neptune was invisible. Or… wait, I’m not sure they did that. Maybe they concluded that their theory was right only when their observations matched the theory. Saying “oh, it’s invisible” is, umm, rather a cute way of getting the observations to match the theory.
I look forward to more creative logic in your response.
Anna V,
“Hi James, a lot of water under the bridge since then 🙂 . I am in a physics mode now :).
How is life?”
Life is extremely good thanks. Best it’s been. I hope all is well with you. (Though the economy must be a bit of a trial.) Yes, oceans of water under the bridge.
I always enjoy seeing your comments here.
James
”
George E. Smith wrote
Anna, when Astronomers/Cosmologists talk of “interstellar dust”, I envisage exactly that; dust like blows around in the yard, so it is measurable sized particles of presumably rocklike materials. I assumes it blocks light from behind, in much the same way as desert dust storms do, but on a much larger, but lower particle density scale. Presumably EM radiation, including visible, is either absorbed or scattered, by such particles in rather ordinady mundane ways.
But such particles would contain many atoms, which can interract (thermally) so collisions can occur, and hence EM radiation via a thermal spectrum would be possible.
So my wild guess for an ordinary matter form of dark matter, would not include such dust particles, but strictly isolated atoms, that never collide with anything, so would tend to maintain a zero dipole moment, so couldn’t radiate like a Hertz or Maxwell antenna carrying a varying current (same as accelerated charge).
”
Interstellar dust is dust pretty much as you envision it. It is also the product of stellar nucleosynthesis. The universe started with hydrogen and helium so far as normal matter goes. Everything else was cooked in the solar furnaces that formed later. Dust will block light and typically has temperatures in the double digits Kelvin. This would be not a candidate for dark matter. There is also normal matter in the form of gases composed of hydrogen even between galaxies and these appear as absorption lines skewed by the redshift of their relative velocity and form what is called the lyman alpha forest found on distant light sources such as quasars. It’s a forest because there is so many different lines present.
For normal matter contributing to the dark matter scenario, one merely has to look at larger objects.
Christian Takacs says: July 12, 2012 at 2:30 am
“…….When you can’t account for 90% (50% ? edit) of anything in order for your theory to be accurate, your theory isn’t working very well….”
Oh, good point Christian…
I propose we simply call it “Bimbly” … that is infinitely better than Dark Matter, and should satisfy everyone who does not like it.
But, the issue remains the same. Until there will arise a better accepted explanation, this is one of the more widely accepted ones …(except for those who are sure they already know better, of course).
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“The observed movement of galaxies doesn’t fit the current understanding (or misunderstanding, as it may be) of the General Relativity theory. To keep this understanding (or misunderstanding) intact, an assumption is being made that we don’t see more than 90% of the mass of the Universe (which in itself assumes that the mass of the Universe is finite — a very bold assumption, to say the least).
On the basis of this assumption a purely mathematical construct was built, that predicts the existence of particles that cannot be observed, and don’t interact with anything observed, other than gravitationally. Very convenient. The gravitational lensing effect is being used, therefore, to try to support this far-fetched abstraction, called upon to save the theory in the face of reality that doesn’t obey the theory (unscientific approach if there ever was one).”
Excellent!! Much more eloquent than my responses. As a creationist myself, by the way, it gives me no pain to consider an infinite, or infinitely old, or rebounding universe, etc. None of these would be outside of the abilities of God to create. Creating fudge factors to fit within our limited understanding of the universe is simply unacceptable science and more dogmatic than some religious beliefs. The possibility of more baryonic matter than estimated indicated by the brown dwarf example you gave and the unexplainable structures at distances (times) where they should not be according to present theory are two of the more recent nails in the coffin of dogmatic science. I guess I am a denier when it comes to some of the present theories of physics as well as AGW. Steven Hawking said their may be quite a few more energy levels in paricle physics beyond quarks and so like Relativity is a much more accurate approximation than Newtonian Physics it may be that on the scale of the very large there may be more levels of specificity just as there may be on the scale of the very small.
The logic of an exploding singularity creating the Big Bang has always bothered me unless the matter/energy is coming from somewhere else, in which case the ability to estimate how much structure should be how far back in time would be even less possible mathmatically. But there are those who believe the multiverse is the answer to that issue. In any event, quantum/particle physics lends itself much more readily to lab proof than does cosmology so it may be the path to more answers in the long run.
The present theories are probably not so much wrong as they are incomplete in their ability to match observations just as Newtonian Physics was good up to the level of ability to observe until recently.
In the ‘crank’s’ universe there is no need for dark energy.
Assuming a low frequency gravitational wave generated by BB (period measured in MegaYears) than its wavelength (assuming propagation at the speed of light) lambda would be x M light years.
If space indeed is an abstract two dimensional on itself curved plane than gravity force field can be divided into two distinct domains : near field at distance d/lambda 1.
Near field we perceive as Newtonian 3 dimensional space where force of gravity is inversely proportional to d^2, while in the far field Newtonian 3D space merges into Einstein-ian ‘plane’ where a ‘gravity force’ is inversely proportional not to the d^2 but to d^1.
Thus in the far field (distance between distant galaxies) ‘a gravity force’ would be immensely stronger so no requirement for nebulous dark energy.
Just a simple thought of an idle mind.
do read about WIMPs and MACHOs http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay20/eaa-wimps-machos.pdf
Good night all.
Alexander Feht says: July 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm
“…… are destined to shame themselves….”
Relax, Alexander.
There is no shame involved. Surely it is simply a discussion on somewhat abstract theory.
Correction
Word press does strange things, it must be written in words:
gravity force field can be divided into two distinct domains : near field at distance d/lambda is less then 1, and far field where d/lambda is more then 1.
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
As a creationist myself,
Whoa… stop. That’s all you had to say. If you lead off with that, people can save themselves a lot of time they otherwise might waste reading your posts.
As the big bang eminated out of a dot like this —> . <— then everything that emminated is on a diverging path. From red shift, we should be able to determine where abouts (roughly) this original point is. The red shift of those on the direct opposite side of the balloon/shock wave should have a different characteristic of red shift than those moving away from us that are in between. Can this not be done?
Anna: Maybe you'd enjoy that KITP link i posted prior where Greg Dobler (admittedly Jan 2010) presents the lattest on the hunt for Dark Matter.
By now there should be some big iron orbitting space dedicated to the hunt for the photo[n]s given off when they self-annihilate.
jtl,
your question about using red shift to determine direction is an intelligent one. Unfortunately the Consensus theory assures us that every direction we look should have approximately the same view and if you were somewhere else, again, a homogeneous view. This is yet another disagreement between observations and the consensus theory as we DO see anisotropies in the CBR and some Astronomers think they CAN determin directions through observations!!
Would one of the consensus experts like to explain to johnny why the Theory says we should see the same thing in all directions?? I never really understood that.
Graphic representation of the C’s Universe (with no dark matter required)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CU.htm
(see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/11/dark-matter-mapped-in-the-universe-for-the-first-time/#comment-1030999
This is my fourth request for some insight into the concept of space expanding. George E Smith, far more educated then many posters, is not afraid to say he does not really get this. Many other less humble commentators, both pro DM and con, claim to have no such troubles. Yet none so far have ventured to attempt an elevator speech to my simple question.
How does space expand, and what does it expand into?
I see space as a three D constuct of height, width, and depth, each of which are infinite, (so IT can only expand into iself, and IT is already there) and when anything else OUANTIFIABLE is added, time becomes another demension operating within cause and effect principles. The balloon analogy, like the raisens in bread analogy does nothing for me. Balloons, including the air inside them, like bread, are quantifiable phenomena, subject to cause and effect. How unquantfiable infinite space, composed of nothing except an infinite three demensional concept, can move galxies at faster then light speed, appears to be rather unreachable.
“One would have to throw a lot of babies out with that bath water. Pretty much all of physics as we know it would have to be seriously reconsidered.”
And this is a bad thing?
But yes, I understand the stakes, and the reluctance to let go of theories that have served us well up till now, especially when there is no clear road ahead. But reality doesn’t give a damn about our theories, or our need to maintain them. Reality seems to be telling us we don’t want to hear. The nerve.
David,
BB theory says that all of space emerged from a spaceless singularity. There is no presumption that this singularity arose within a “metaspace”, if you will. It’s not a 3D model as you suppose, with a dot in the middle of infinite 3D space, out of which stuff explodes. It’s really the space which explodes, carrying with it a lot of stuff that emerges from the space. Likewise, this didn’t happen at some point in time. Time also emerged from the BB, and began expanding as well. So you can’t separate space from matter, ultimately, or time from space, and so on. And none of them, including space, is infinite. If you follow a straight line through space, it won’t keep on going forever. In our universe, it will eventually turn back on its own source, because space itself is curved.
What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer, any more than it can answer what matter is. It can merely describe it as an interaction of forces and energies that obey certain patterns of physical law. So space is just that – a field of forces and energies that is obeying various laws whose origins we don’t know.
Your problem in understanding this is that you seem to think space is infinite and shaped like a cartesian 3D set of planes. It isn’t. It is limited by the forces and energies of the BB, which are huge, but not infinite. The shape of space is itself determined by those forces and energies, including gravity. It has no inherent, fixed shape. It expands or contracts according to the forces and energies it is defined by. In fact, IT HAS NO OTHER DEFINITION. If the force is big enough, it will expand incredibly fast, such as in the early moments of the BB. If the forces are minimal, it will contract to “ordinary” dimensions. But it is not what you might presume it to be. Space isn’t a substance or thing-in-itself, It only exists in relation to the forces and energies that create its contours.
We’re not in Kansas anymore.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Should I regard your invitation to read Wikipedia article on Big Bang as an intentional insult?
Or are you really that simple?
Please point me to the post where I sent you to a wikipedia link.
The intentional insults have been coming from you after all. BTW I am as simple as any research physicist.
For all:
Wikipedia links are useful for people who are on the stage of understanding archimedes principle, and wade into a physics discussion. Somebody has spent some time writing up on the subject and a number of people have corrected it.
People who think they know everything and their theory is as good as any other man’s theory cannot profit from anything anyway.
People are insulting to assume that physics research works as AGW research.
Yes, there are fashions . After all it is not too long ago when the luminiferous aether was necessary for electromagnetic theory of the time. But research means always questioning the premises of a model theory against the data.
For working physicists, missing mass and missing energy are not stop gap notions. That was the way the neutrino was discovered and established, to the point of having neutrino beams. That was because neutrinos interact mainly with the weak interaction. Gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than the weak interaction, and a physical theory of everything will per force have unknown now particles which will only interact with the gravitational interaction. At the point particle physics is now, in the LHC, we are looking for candidate particles for dark matter. If these are found, problem solved If not, back to the drawing board.
Astrophysics needs longer times for the hypotheseis that are current to be left on the sidewalk as misconceptions or be absorbed in new theories. The only consensus in physics science is of people agreeing that the data fit the model. BB model has a lot of leeway in the minds of physicists because it ties together many observations. If it is an inadequate/ wrong model it will eventually be superseded by something that fits all the data and predicts new observations.
anna v,
Good comments. Thanks. I agree, cosmology is nothing like Post Normal Science climatology, which for the most part is not really science at all, but a belief system heavily supported by confirmation bias.
Add me to those appalled at the reception of this paper. If you wish, accept that “Dark Matter” and “Dark Energy” are simply names given to some otherwise inexplicable factors derived from experimental results. But they are not figments of mathematical equations devoid from reality. They are the consequences of applying everything we know to what we observe and discovering a discrepancy. There is something there, it is real and it is important.
cba says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:00 am
Leif, If DM tracks the density of “normal” matter ( and some think that normal matter clumps around DM ) then if the universe consists of about 4% normal matter and 25% DM (and 70% dark energy) then wouldn’t one expect that the typical DM density to be about 5 times that of normal matter on average?
The density of normal matter is also extremely small [when smeared over galactic distances], about 3×10-31 times the mass density of water.
ian cairns says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:14 am
And then taught in the universities as “facts”
This is totally wrong. The primary objective [at least in the sciences] is to teach the students to think for themselves and question everything. So when a topic is taught, the derivations and observations are clearly laid out. The emphasis is on ‘how do we know that?’
vukcevic says:
And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun.
Why did you have to say that?
My coffee went all over my keyboard…
I said it because it is likely true. And very likely in our laboratories as well, so we can actively search for DM.
People are actually looking for DM in the Sun: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.5290v1.pdf
James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:15 am
“And that is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that we indeed cannot see it.”
The fact that it is invisible is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that you can’t see it? That’s an unusual logical construct.
No, not at all. We know it is there, we know it is not baryons so we can’t see it. So, we infer that is something else.
Or, you could be wrong.
There is enough observational evidence to convince me that DM exists. Of course, all the observers and all the theorists could be wrong. And I could win the lottery tomorrow, but I’ll count on either of those scenarios.
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
I do not believe anyone has actually hands on inventoried the mass of the universe.
What you do not believe is likely based on what you do not know. We have actually a rather precise inventory:
72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.
Lancifer says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:21 am
Try to cut the ignorant some slack and don’t condemn all of us that frequent WUWT.
I condemn the willfully ignorant. If you know that you are not one of those, you should take offence as there is no criticism of you then.
cba says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:25 am
Steven says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Demonstrated laboratory results or someones idea of how it should be.
Here is someone you should trust: http://www.leif.org/EOS/yamada10rmp.pdf and it is simply not treu that astrophysists do not know anything about plasma physics. I used to work for Institute for Plasma Physics at Stanford [now it is in a different department]
conradg says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:20 pm
The difference is that we haven’t yet found Dark Matter.
Neither had people between whwn the prediction was made and the observation as made.
The task for us today is harder, so it takes longer.
anna v says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:27 pm
kuhnkat says:
July 12, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Here and in my ignorance I thought the CONSENSUS view was that expansion occurred BETWEEN objects such as Galaxies
Space expands unifomrly [as far as we know] everywhere. That galaxies [actually clusters of galaxies] and stuff smaller do not expand is because as weak a gravitation is, the expansion is weaker and only at so large distances that graviation is negligible [remember gravitation decreases with the squre of the distance] does the expansion happen. On smaller scale gravitation holds things together the same way as it prevents you from drifting off the ground and into space.
Alexander Feht says:
July 12, 2012 at 1:38 pm
The observed movement of galaxies doesn’t fit the current understanding (or misunderstanding, as it may be) of the General Relativity theory.
Not true, it fits very well. And some simple things are unrelated to GR, like the rotation of galaxies.
James Evans says:
July 12, 2012 at 2:35 pm
I look forward to more creative logic in your response.
From past responses it is clear that logic does not work with you.
vukcevic says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:07 pm
In the ‘crank’s’ universe there is no need for dark energy.
That is why he is a just a crank.
johnnythelowery says:
July 12, 2012 at 4:01 pm
As the big bang eminated out of a dot
It did not. As we know know that the universe is flat it follows that it is also infinite. All of that infinite space expanded and still does. Infinity takes a little while to comprehend. Imagine you have a hotel with inifinitely many rooms, all occupied. Now comes a new guest and asks for a room. Easy, says the clerk at the desk, I just move the guest in room 1 to room 2, and the guest who was there to room number 3, and so on. That leaves room number 1 empty to accomodate the new guest. This can be repeated for the next new guest ad infinitum. Actually the whole question is a bit more complicated as it is not just space that expands, but space-time. General relativity is concerned with the forces that act and they in the end define space-time.
Leif,
you keep getting funnier and funnier.
“The fact that it is invisible is spectacularly confirmed by the fact that you can’t see it? That’s an unusual logical construct. No, not at all. We know it is there, we know it is not baryons so we can’t see it. So, we infer that is something else.”
You do NOT KNOW it is there. You ASSUME based on your models that it is there.
You do NOT KNOW it is not baryons as you have limited knowledge of Baryons, but, I accept the effect is probably not caused based on what we SEEM to know about Baryons.
Yes, you infer quite a bit based on ASSumptions!!
We cannot “SEE” fields and this would be another possible inference based on assumptions.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Some unfortunate typos:
“I would not count on either of those scenarios.”
“you should not take offence as there is no criticism of you then”
the ordinary other typos do not hurt.
Alan Wilkinson says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Add me to those appalled at the reception of this paper.
It is noteworthy that the willfully ignorant are the same who in other posts of physics-related topics also parade their ignorance and hostility.
Steven says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:31 am
Who here does not understand that plasma in space is the only known thing that form filamentary structures?
What you ‘know’ and reality have little to do with each other. Filamentary structures arise naturally using only gravity: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110929144645.htm or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJ1r5NG5YGs
Leif,
You say “There is enough observational evidence to convince me that DM exists.”
Fair enough. Who could argue with that?
You also say “We know it is there”.
Who could resist arguing with that?
brokenyogi says…
1. ” It’s really the space which explodes….. Time also emerged from the BB, and began expanding as well. So you can’t separate space from matter, ultimately, or time from space, and so on. And none of them, including space, is infinite. If you follow a straight line through space, it won’t keep on going forever. In our universe, it will eventually turn back on its own source, because space itself is curved.
2. What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer, any more than it can answer what matter is. It can merely describe it as an interaction of forces and energies that obey certain patterns of physical law. So space is just that – a field of forces and energies that is obeying various laws whose origins we don’t know.
3. The shape of space is itself determined by those forces and energies, including gravity. It has no inherent, fixed shape. It expands or contracts according to the forces and energies it is defined by.
4. If the force is big enough, it will expand incredibly fast, such as in the early moments of the BB. If the forces are minimal, it will contract to “ordinary” dimensions. But it is not what you might presume it to be. Space isn’t a substance or thing-in-itself, It only exists in relation to the forces and energies that create its contours.
5., We’re not in Kansas anymore.
———————————————————————————
Dear Brokenyogi ( a curious name as yoga is from binding, or union, and broken implies the opposite) ….at any rate, thank you for the attemted explanation. I see, from my perspective, numerous logical fails which I will try to articulate.
Concerning (1,) exploding space… How can something with zero intrinsic attributes, “What space actually is, is not a question physics can attempt to answer” (see (2) explode? Of course I can separate space from matter. In my mind this is easypeazy. (-; I am not being flippant. Matter is quantifiable, IE, it has attributes which can be identified by any number. In infinite nothingness there is no time because time depends on division, cause and effect, quantifiable numbers; so yes, time is as relative as the materials which form it, all of which are quantifiable and measureable, neither infinite, or nothing. Time stops at nothing, and also at the infinite. So while I can imagine 3 dimensions without any barriers, I cannot imagine three demensions with barriers, beyond which there is no demensions. Can you?
Concerning your assertion that if I continue in a straight line for billions of light years I will suddenly arrive at my beginning, Well I can no more concieve of that then I can concieve of no demensions beyond your curved space. At what distance will I begin to get closer to my starting point? (How far can a dog run into a forrest) LOL, scratch that humor…but will I be x billions of light years away, and suddenly, going just a little further, be back at my lift off point, or will I suddenly transition from moving further away to start getting closer. At any rate, whenever this point exists that I start getting closer to my destination, I will just turn a little to keep going further away, and I see nothing to stop me, do you? Oh, and concerning this singularity, well I have it on good authority that the closer we go to the beginning of time, the closer we get to infinite energy, and in fact all the math points to infinite energy beyond the singularity, beyond time. not nothing. I do not mean exponentially growing signals, but absolute infinite energy. Infinity, like nothing, can not be quantified and allows no time.
Cocerning (3) Why? What are the properties of this space. What are the numbers that define it. I can see how once some relative quantafiable matter enters the three demensions, time and cause and effect operate. I do not see why height, width and depth require matter.
Now concerning (2) , overall I think it is a logical fail, as the premise defines the answer. Also, as i have pointed out, all matter is quantifiable. There are no absolutes in relationship to science. I maintain that science is, in its essence, “cause and effect” beyond this science ceases to operate. Every effect is proceeded by a prior cause. There can be no effect without a prior cause. All causes are themselves an effect. Cause and effect is a chain and it, with the arrow of time, moves in one direction. All causes and effects are quantifiable. In this sense, science to me is the study of how all things in the cosmos interact, and the laws that govern those interactions. Science is constrained to time, space and relativity. Science cannot contain absolutes. and it cannot deny them. A primary tool of science is to use mathematics, one through any number, but never absolute infinity, which is not a number. I am referring to absolutes, and not the use of these terms within RELATIVE fields often representing exponentially growing signals and negative exponents representing exponentially decreasing signals. I am not referring to time constants (decaying or growing) As such science can only see a part of the whole and must keep an open mind to new information. But an idea, the concept of width, height and depth, absent matter, it has no constraints, and no law of physics precludes its existence.
Cocerning (4) Again, a logical fail, “begging the question/ circular reasoning… An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove. Such arguments are said to beg the question. A circular argument fails as a proof because it will only be judged to be sound by those who already accept its conclusion.
Anyone who rejects the argument’s conclusion should also reject at least one of its premises (the one that is the same as its conclusion), and so should reject the argument as a whole. Anyone who accepts all of the argument’s premises already accepts the argument’s conclusion, so can’t be said to have been persuaded by the argument. In neither case, then, will the argument be successful.
(5.) True, we are not in Kansas, but Kansa is within science, and science is limited to a quantafiable primary chain of cause and effect observations, upon which all deductive reason is based, having a self limiting paradox. Simply put, cause and effect cannot be an absolute eternal chain, otherwise one is stating that “everything inclusive” has no cause, it always was, which in and of itself defeats the laws of science and deductive reason applied to observation, and induces the well known paradox that if “everything inclusive “ always was, then everything that could have occurred, already would have, and in effect states the unscientific proposition that while every thing (relative things which can be quantified) in creation have a cause, everything inclusive has no cause, it just unscientifically is. The other side of this paradox is that (accepting the above problem as valid) if there was then a first cause, what ever that cause was had to have no cause and must be beyond the laws of cause and effect. Science, by it very nature, only deals with relativity, quantifying numbers and partial observations which can only see a part of the whole. It has no authority to limit nothing, or the infinite.
Lief:
If there were a dark matter halo in our solar system, it would show up as an apparent violation of 1/r^2 for the solar system. This how is tightly constrained. See e.g. C. Talmadge, J. P. Berthias, R. W. Hellings, and E. M. Standish, “Model-independent constraints on possible modifications of Newtonian gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1159 (1988). Link.
Serano 2006 looks at this in detail. From their conclusions:
So while there is certainly dark matter in our solar system, if it is present in our Galaxy, astrophysical measurements fail by many orders of magnitude to be able to detect it using orbital dynamics in our solar system.
Leif’s next blunder:
Not true, it fits very well. And some simple things are unrelated to GR, like the rotation of galaxies.
If rotation of the galaxies fits General Relativity very well, how can it be unrelated to it?
Take your nonsense somewhere else, Leif.
You pretend to know it all but in the end the thing you know best is how to waste our time.
Listen to your guru Leif Svalgaard expostulating:
As we know [k]now that the universe is flat it follows that it is also infinite. All of that infinite space expanded and still does. Infinity takes a little while to comprehend.
That he says with the straight face, after giving us those wonderfully exact numbers:
We have actually a rather precise inventory: 72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.
How can you calculate the mass of the Universe if it is infinite?
How can you know exactly, what it is made of, if it stretches without end beyond any observation?
Oh, but we, lowly amateurs, cannot comprehend infinity.
Only people who obtained their doctorates by being infinitely conformist, comprehend it all.
I still cannot decide if Leif is a troll mocking us on purpose, or a truly mentally disturbed individual.
Probably both.
But he will say, of course, that “most commenters here” are ignorant bumpkins.
What else can he say?
Let me introduce you to the Cosmological Constant, aka Dark Energy.
Or maybe not. It depends …
I saw a young lady getting off at our bus-stop the other day and thought “My goodness, she’s NAKED!”. But then she walked closer to our house and I realised she was wearing tan coloured trousers and a light tan-coloured sweater.
I blame my lenses for my initial error!
Leif Svalgaard says: July 12, 2012 at 9:19 pm
………
But a very rare occasion he/she could be a step ahead of the conventional aproach.
If BB caused a gravitational wave with its wavelength equal to the radius of the universe at any time t, then gravitational constant g would be subject to relativistic formula adjustment
In that case gravitational pull of two very distant objects is many more times than provided by non-relativistic approach.
Derivation of the relativistic factor is shown in this screen snapshot:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.gif
Additional benefit of this calculation is that Newtonian and Einsteinian spaces are merged into single entity with a homogeneous gravitational field.
You are invited to fault it.
More details will be added if a further elaboration is required
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.htm
Make a big bang of anything and you have a big empty space with everything traveling in all directions from the bang. The central space would get bigger and bigger as all the parts travel away in all directions. Please Sir, I have a question, “Why is the centre of the universe so dense that we can not penetrate its mysteries” Sir, my next question,” Is it really a factory in the middle for making stuff”
” Sir, after all these billions of years why is the middle still the densest part????”
“Sir,is it all the black stuff in the middle that we can not see in, or is the black stuff accelerating the universe or holding it together.” Sir, as a teacher of cosmology and a guru of the standard model construct of the universe are you not conflicted by its inconsistantsies for I am bewildered and confused as to the real nature of the universe.”
“Sir, is the dark energy, unmeasurable and unseen clouding our view of the universal centre, and manipulating our pathetic ideas of energy and matter.” Oft times the Gurus are the problem and not the answer. The answers will come, but not from the mainstream education system, it will be a rebel.
”
Alexander Feht says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:32 am
Listen to your guru Leif Svalgaard expostulating:
As we know [k]now that the universe is flat it follows that it is also infinite. All of that infinite space expanded and still does. Infinity takes a little while to comprehend.
That he says with the straight face, after giving us those wonderfully exact numbers:
We have actually a rather precise inventory: 72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.
How can you calculate the mass of the Universe if it is infinite?
How can you know exactly, what it is made of, if it stretches without end beyond any observation?
Oh, but we, lowly amateurs, cannot comprehend infinity.
Only people who obtained their doctorates by being infinitely conformist, comprehend it all.
I still cannot decide if Leif is a troll mocking us on purpose, or a truly mentally disturbed individual.
Probably both.
But he will say, of course, that “most commenters here” are ignorant bumpkins.
What else can he say?
”
one can calculate the density. Since WMAP indicates that the universe is flat rather than curved (to 1% or better) it means that the density must be the critical density. That turns out to be about the equivalent of 5.9 protons per m^3 but that includes energy , DM and DE. Since gravitational forces travel at the speed of light, we are unaware about what lies outside of the boundary. That is to say we can be in an infinitely large universe that has an initial creation date. If space were not expanding, we would see an ever increasing universe size as light and forces reach us from ever increasing distances.
As with many things, we see evidence of things we may not see directly, enough to have high confidence. Looking at our galactic center, we see and have measured orbits of stars around a central object we cannot see. It’s very straightforward to calculate the mass of the object something is orbiting if we know what the orbit is. That object has a mass of 3 to 4 million sun sized stars yet it is very small and emits no light that we can detect – unlike those stars orbiting it. In a few years, a gas cloud near by will fall into it as its motion has also been determined by observing it. People are already getting ready to observe this because it is expected that the object will light up big time or at least the gas will. It would be rather foolish to assume there is nothing there because we cannot “see” it in our telescopes.
****
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:17 am
What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
****
EVERY time I see stuff on Discovery, etc, showing the big bang as something exploding into empty “space”, I cringe. That’s not how it happened ’cause there wasn’t any “outside”. Immediately after the BB, if one could be much smaller than an atom, you’d be surrounded of course by extreme energy density. But if you were a significant percent of the universe’s size at that point, you’d prb’ly look “ahead” and see your own feet! Look behind & see your own head looking backwards! In fact, you’d prb’ly see your image all around you. There wouldn’t be any edge or “outside”; you could traverse the whole universe just following your own feet, coming back to your original location at some point. As far as the expansion, you’d see the image of your feet flying away from you in front of you, and your head behind flying away in the opposite direction. You yourself, tho, wouldn’t feel a thing. As time and expansion continued, it would take longer & longer to traverse the universe back to your original point.
This is what I imagine — prb’ly not accurate. Simple words prb’ly CAN’T describe it. But the point is, there is no “outside” or edge.
Alexander Feht says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:32 am
But he will say, of course, that “most commenters here” are ignorant bumpkins.
What else can he say?
They demonstrate themselves the truth of my statement, you in particular. Now, it is no shame to be ignorant [I’m ignorant of many things outside of my field]. It is deplorable to be willfully ignorant and not wanting to learn. The latter could have a reason in lacking the necessary faculties [which is no shame]. Is that your excuse? Or don’t you know?
kuhnkat says:
July 11, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Jeff Mitchell,
good question, except they don’t really have a lot of details to give us other than it apparently has a REPULSIVE force to herd all that inconvenient matter into neat orbits.
There is something called “momentum”. Ever heard of it? No? You should look it up someday. It is related to mass, by the way.
Tony Mach,
yes I do believe I have heard of momentum. I believe it is what keeps your mouth moving.
Please explain to me how momentum, which continues things in a straight line if not perturbed, helps the hypothesized dark matter?? by the way, are you sure dark matter has mass?? I can’t seem to find the details of dark matter as to its physical properties other than it not seeming to affect much of anything other than a repulsion to herd normal matter. maybe you can provide me with the Paper that discusses the actual properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy??
I notice neither Leif, Anna, or anyone else has jumped in to provide us ignorant types an education in these mythical things. Does your momentum explain that also??
Carrick says:
July 12, 2012 at 11:15 pm
“So while there is certainly dark matter in our solar system, if it is present in our Galaxy, astrophysical measurements fail by many orders of magnitude to be able to detect it using orbital dynamics in our solar system.”
Leif says in one of his posts on this page that it’s probably inside the Sun!! But wait, then it would’nt be dark would it? I guess we are all just ingnorant bumpkins like he says.
James Hastings-Trew says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 3:06 pm
As a creationist myself,
“Whoa… stop. That’s all you had to say. If you lead off with that, people can save themselves a lot of time they otherwise might waste reading your posts.”
If you read any of my posts you would know how wrong you are. Perhaps your definition of “creationist” is different than mine. I am not a “6000 year old Earth” guy but simply believe that there is a God who created all of this and that he could have done it any way he wanted to, flat space, curved space, space/time, space separate from time, etc, etc.. Since both quantum physics and general relativity point out how perfectly everything fits together to allow our universe to even exist it seems logical that there is intelligent design and a Designer. Pure accidental initiation of this universe seems a more “religious” belief in that it ignores the obvious.
I guess that is the problem with labels and those who use them and discriminate based upon them. But this time it was my fault since I am not of the ilk you think, I am not that familiar with how folks define creationist. Probably not the way I do.
Leif Svalgaard says:
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
“I do not believe anyone has actually hands on inventoried the mass of the universe.
What you do not believe is likely based on what you do not know. We have actually a rather precise inventory:
72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter.”
Leif, you are a perfect example of the Sam Clemmens (Mark Twain for you) quote, “it’s not all the things that people don’t know that is the problem it is all the things they do know that just ain’t so”. You obviously don’t know what a “hands on inventory is” !! I do not believe anyone has physically counted and weighed all of the matter in the universe and since not all of it is even visible you are speaking nonsense. Your numbers are theoretical estimates..
Jim,
I’m not sure what you guys’ deal with Leif is here (apologize to him for transposing “i” and “e”). I wish you’d leave personalities out and spend a bit more time reading what he said instead of projecting is all. I’ve lost the thread here on what it is you guys are even objecting to.
Anyway, the problem with all of the dark matter in the solar system being inside of the sun is it requires it to have a higher mass (e.g., a WIMP), but this is ruled out by cosmological models already, at least in the quantity needed to explain the galactic rotation curves.
(There’s absolutely no reason to assume there is only one particle or particle mass for dark matter, by the way.)
kuhnkat:
What does it mean to “seem to know something”? (The trillions of baryonic collisions in collider experiments apparently have taught us nothing about baryons. /sadface.)
Carrick,
don’t be a putz. The fact that there are a very large number of instances that have been recorded in colliders may tell you enough to exclude what you call baryonic matter from being the cause of the way galaxies rotate. It certainly tells us little else. The one thing I see in modern science is an egotism and arrogance approaching that of the Guy who proclaimed we knew everything important to know.
Leif claims that hallucinating dark matter and and dark energy is thinking outside of the box. I rather think the following is thinking outside of the steel bands consensus science has built around your minds:
http://milesmathis.com/fland.pdf
Here are two guys thinking outside the box while y’all are set in cement.
Leif Svalgaard says: July 13, 2012 at 7:22 am
………..
Ignorance is not showing that an alternative result can be obtained by applying Einstein’s relativistic factor to the gravity constant
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/RG.htm
It is the opposite of the ignorance you imply.
Leif,
Here are highlights from your posts in this thread:
Post 1: “Look around, and don’t pretend to be dumb.”
Post 2: “Dark Matter is thinking out of the box you seem to be in.”
Post 3: “Before shooting your mouth off, go check out the link(s), then pose questions to things you don’t understand.”
Post 5: “They are already here, in farce.”
Post 8: “When one contemplates the dismal level of knowledge displayed by most commenters here…”
Post 10 “It is very possible that you do not understand mathematics and therefore have a hard time understanding the science.”
That’s enough for now.
Let the people decide – what sort of person are you?
Enjoy your superiority, it must feel lovely.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Alan Wilkinson says:
July 12, 2012 at 8:59 pm
Add me to those appalled at the reception of this paper.
“It is noteworthy that the willfully ignorant are the same who in other posts of physics-related topics also parade their ignorance and hostility”
Would you not agree that there are physicists not willfully ignorant who have issues with dark matter? Was dark matter not postulated because the essentially Newtonian (lets gratuitously throw in: “and Einsteinian”, as is the usual form) gravity could not account for such things as the velocity of the outer spiral arms and other observed discrepancies? Could there be something not right about our idea of gravity – must we enshrine the 100yr old idea in platinum for all time? Gentlemen, no matter how you twist and dance, DM is a mathematical patch on a not-fully-satisfactory theory. Is it legitimate to look for this DM to perserve what we believe about gravity? Yes, of course it is. Is it legitimate to consider the possibility that we have an incomplete or incorrect theory of gravity – that the masters were not infallible. Which is the job of a good skeptic when such a “discovery” is made. I think there is a case for the discovery to be a tautology starting off with the belief in DM. If gravity is a different animal than the mainstream thinks and replaces DM, the lensing would occur just the same.
You are both aware of the unintended experiment, that of the Pioneer anomaly (I don’t believe that this has been discussed – it might be proof that those you malign are not the ones in a in a box):
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=pioneer%20anomaly&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
“Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.”
Here the gravitational pull, apparently of the sun at these distances is stronger than we “calculated” using the tried and true theory. Take off your labcoats for a moment and just think about the possibilities. Does Dark Matter come to mind all by itself.
Let me add a thought experiment to my comment above:
Were the pioneer launced from the hub of a galaxy (ignoring the difficulties of doing this) how would it behave as it reached the farthest parts of the spiral arms?
Carrick,
The problem is that Leif claims to know the unknowable (mass directional flow in initial conditions of the BB), speaks of theory and estimates based upon theory as if they are fact (mass distribution of the universe), makes pronoucements like “solar system DM might be inside the Sun”,( this being the case dark matter inside of stars is NOT dark), and is uncompromisingly condescending in his attitude and posts using the term ignorant repeatedly for all those who disagree with him. Insufferable! See James Evans’ post.
Gary:
Above, I pointed to two studies that looked for apparent violations of the inverse square, one of these not behind a pay-wall so you could read it. NOBODY started out assuming that DM was the only possible explanation, what you are suggesting is just whacky nonsense. We do consider the possibility that GR/Newtonian gravity break down over these ranges. Theories are constructed all of the time proposing possible alternative.
John Moffat is one, Mordehai Milgrom is another, the studies I refer to set limits on Yukawa type interactions predicted by extensions of classical gravity to quantum mechanics (look up “supergravity” for example). [Milgrom’s theories get discussed in both papers.] In fact, one explanation posited for the deviation of galactic rotation curves was a new Yukawa force.
The problem with either of these alternatives is the violation of the galactic rotation curves does not appear to be the same in all galaxies, which suggests that the phenomenon that causes the deviations is not universal, like an extension of GR, but rather something that is rather idiosyncratic to each particular galaxy. Since the phenomenon is not universal, explanations involved a modification to a universal law are not favored. Further reading here.
(If I manage to get a copy of the PDF for this thesis, I’ll post it.)
By the way, there’s a difference between being a “good skeptic”…which implies being informed…from being incredulous, which only requires ignorance.
Let me rephrase this “The problem with either of these alternatives is the deviations of the galactic rotation curves from that expected by the inverse square law does not appear to be the same in all galaxies.” See Jennifer Coy’s thesis (again I’m trying to get a copy) for a complete discussion of this.
Jim, as I said, it would benefit the discussion of all involved got beyond personalities (I know I’m guilty of this too at time, so please don’t see this as me “getting on the high horse.”).
As to “dark matter” not being dark if it is inside of the Sun, that’s a semantic distinction you make that misses the point of what “dark” matter means. It means it doesn’t interact strongly with photons. Whether it’s in the center of the Sun or not has no effect on that.
Jim G says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:28 pm
“The problem is that Leif claims to know the unknowable (mass directional flow in initial conditions of the BB), speaks of theory and estimates based upon theory as if they are fact (mass distribution of the universe), makes pronoucements like “solar system DM might be inside the Sun”,”
First of all, you state that Leif made a pronouncement, you put it in quotation marks to imply it is the exact quote. You either cannot read or are just careless. Here is the cut and pasted quote from Dr S:
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 12, 2012 at 7:27 am
“… And about dark matter present in the solar system: We do expect there to be some, possibly in the sun….”
Now you may decide to argue that your statement was close enough or means the same thing. Perhaps you were simply too lazy to actually look back at it to get it right, which would then seem to validate Leif’s criticisms about some of the posters here.
Tom in Florida says:
Criticism accepted, I was too lazy. Should not have used quotes. Mea Culpa. Still a pretty ridiculous comment for the location of DM. How about the rest of my comments? Do you want to defend his other pronouncements or his manner?
Gary Pearse says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=pioneer%20anomaly&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
“Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun’s gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected. The effect is an extremely small but unexplained acceleration towards the Sun, of 8.74±1.33×10−10 m/s2. The two spacecraft were launched in 1972 and 1973 and the anomalous acceleration was first noticed as early as 1980, but not seriously investigated until 1994.[1] The last communication with either spacecraft was in 2003, but analysis of recorded data continues.”
Here the gravitational pull, apparently of the sun at these distances is stronger than we “calculated” using the tried and true theory. Take off your labcoats for a moment and just think about the possibilities. Does Dark Matter come to mind all by itself.
============
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Sun
“The heliosphere, which may be considered the tenuous outer atmosphere of the Sun, extends outward past the orbit of Pluto to the heliopause, where it forms a sharp shock boundary with the interstellar medium.
…
The heliosphere (The heliosphere is a bubble in space “blown” into the interstellar medium by the solar wind. Although electrically neutral atoms from interstellar volume can penetrate this bubble, virtually all of the material in the heliosphere emanates from the Sun itself), which is the cavity around the Sun filled with the solar wind plasma, extends from approximately 20 solar radii (0.1 AU) to the outer fringes of the Solar System. Its inner boundary is defined as the layer in which the flow of the solar becomes superalfvénic—that is, where the flow becomes faster than the speed of Alfvén wave until it impacts the heliopause more than 50 from the Sun. In December 2004, the Voyager 1 passed through a shock front that is thought to be part of the heliopause. Both of the Voyager probes have recorded higher levels of energetic particles as they approach the boundary.”
It looks like it is this shock front which could be slowing them down. Could the shock front be caused by a greater mass of the intersteller medium pressing down on the surface of the heliosphere?
—
p.s. – how can the universe be flat if it expanded in all directions?
Dark matter, has mass but does not interact electromagneticly, does not produce light nor reflect light, only interacts gravitationally? So, if it is inside of the Sun, or any other star, its mass should affect the burn rate of the star, and the size of the star due to the change, by its presence, in the star’s gravity and the coutervaling outward force of the nuclear reactions caused by that greater mass? So, now even though we do not see it directly we see a larger hotter star and this dark matter is no longer effectively dark and would be seen as part of the baryonic matter taht we can see? Effectively it is no longer dark matter, though we still cannot see it? This is very convenient and explains why we cannot find any dark matter locally but also means there is even less baryonic matter than we thought. A fudge factor for the fudge factor. Dark matter and dark energy may indeed exist but the convenience of these circumstances to existing theory would seem to call any true scientist to question and be skeptical that we are not just possibly missing something in our theory and not to be so dogmatic in quoting it as fact..
David, simply because you have trouble imagining these things, does not make them either untrue, or contradictory. Obviously some people have better imaginations than others. Einstein was able to imagine a universe with curved space. Can you? What is space, that it curves?
Well, hard to say. Analogies are possible, but not easy to swallow. For example, what does it mean to travel in a straight line? Straight relative to what? Let’s say we have a very large race track. If you travel around the track, staying parallel to the inside of the track, you will seem to be traveling in a straight line. In reality, your path will be curved. You can only tell it’s curved by comparing it to things outside the racetrack. But if the racetrack is the entire universe, and you can’t see anything outside it, how can you tell if you are going in a straight line, or a curve, and relative to what?
Well, you can tell by comparing it to light, which does not curve, but travels along space which does curve. By observing the displacement of starlight by the sun during a solar eclipse, Einstein’s theory was confirmed in 1919. Space is curved by gravitation. But what is being curved? Well, hard to say, even though you can quantify it quite easily. As with matter, energy, and force fields of all kinds, all science really can do is quantify these, it can’t tells us what they are at some irreducible level. Space is merely a quantified field in which energy and matter and force interact with one another. If you want a better answer than that, seek a theological one.
I can’t get into all your other objections in this limited space, but essentially you are objecting to the fact that science defines things in relation to one another, and not in relation to some absolute. Thus, there is indeed a fundamental circularity to its logic. If you want an absolute to found all these on, again, look to theology. As long as the numbers crunch, all is well. When they don’t crunch, we need new theories, or better observation. If you want the numbers that define space, you are simply going to have to look at the fundamental laws and constants of physics itself. Those are what define space. Look at Plank’s constant. People are still trying to figure out what it means. Check out quantum loop gravity theory. People are still trying to reconcile QM with GR at the level of space itself. Not an easy task.
The big problem with the imagination is that our brains evolved to deal with ordinary problems of survival in the macro-world of 3D. But that isn’t the real world, it’s just a virtual world our brains create to deal with ordinary stuff. The real world is not something our brains ever evolved to imagine. Even our imaginations didn’t evolve to solve problems like that. So the closer we come to real answers to the nature of reality, the further we are from what our imaginations are capable of dealing with – unless we unhinge our imaginations from its ordinary limits. That’s why people like Einstein are so rare. Most people that unhinged wind up in lunatic asylums. It’s very hard to have that kind of unhinged imagination, and yet seem fairly normal in most other respects. Maybe you should count yourself lucky that this stuff is beyond your ability to imagine it.
something in our theory and not to be so dogmatic in quoting it as fact..
brokenyogi says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:13 pm
David, simply because you have trouble imagining these things, does not make them either untrue, or contradictory. Obviously some people have better imaginations than others. Einstein was able to imagine a universe with curved space. Can you? What is space, that it curves?
What Einstein imagined was that subjective filtering by his mind created reality – he imagined because the perception of time slowed or speeded up depending on one’s state of mind, that this actually altered the objective physical world around us for everyone.. “Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT’S relativity.”
His idea that speed of travel slowed down time is simply imagination. For example, it is nonsense that someone sitting still in a train carriage is going to get to the next station faster than someone rushing down the corridor of that train who is physically slowing down time by his speed.
Einstein’s theory was confirmed in 1919. Space is curved by gravitation. But what is being curved? Well, hard to say, even though you can quantify it quite easily.
It didn’t prove anything of his theory, all it showed was basic Newton that gravity pulls in matter.
Einstein’s gravity is nonsensical, a mass’s weight distoring ‘spacetime’ in a vortex is only going to be on one side of that mass, the opposite side will be a bulge into ‘spacetime’. Is this how we got the ‘flat universe’? That ubiquitous flat rubber mat distorted to show a ball careering into the vortex centre?
None of the “scenarios” given in support of relativity bear close scrutiny – the GPS system is one such, which I investigated here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/a-couple-of-pertinent-quotes/#comment-956548
Einstein said that it would only take one proof to falsify his theory, well this does it. Unless you can prove that the distance from New York to San Francisco is greater in one direction than the other…
Myrrh says: July 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
and
Gary Pearse says:July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
………………
Einstein’s mc^2 formula was derived by considering kinetic energy of a moving object and applying relativistic factor 1/sq.root[1-(v/c)^2].
If the same relativistic factor is applied to the gravity ‘constant’, then it can be shown that the gravitational pull of the objects from opposite edges of universe could be 10 times greater than previously thought. This would totally eliminate requirement for the ‘dark matter’.
“Here read all the numbers you want:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Sun_and_stars”
None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
I would say that if you don’t or can’t, the discussion is brought to a deserved end.
——————————-
Leif: Ever get an answer to your challenge from the EU guys?? Do you have an idea why they havn’t??
The exchanges here and on that other recent thread on the MRI of the Sun’s convection belts are are disrespectul but seems to me they really desire your(!) approval even though they know they won’t get it. A curious thing really. You must be a celeb. and am now shipping off a photo-shopped version of you in swimming shorts with Arnold’s body, off to People Magazine. (As it’s the media they get it all wrong and run the caption: Santa spotted on Santa Monica beach…!!! hahah)
Cheers for the debate………again.
OK, Leif and Myrrh together, that’s too rich.
Whatever, dudes. I’m out of here.
The gasps of a lost battle when the name calling starts. When data can no longer be presented in coherent form they always turn to name calling. But I understand you are here only to retort what was parrotted to you and know no other way. Certainly marks of scientific exploration. Oh, but that’s right, we are so close to that theory of everything arn’t we.
Ever wonder why they cant unite both the macro and micro into one unified theory? Because in the one they include the electrical force (atomic interactions), and in the other they exclude it (galactic interractions). This is why, and this we all must admit is true, no one knows what causes the gravitational force, AND no one really knows what electrcity is. These are the two big unknowns in science that everything relies on and are in fact one and the same.
Doubt this, look at the very first graph to explain this CME. Stories written by Standard model theorists, so you can’t say we stuck it there. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/12/x-class-solar-flare-directs-cme-directly-at-earth/
As has been said, electrical fields and magnetic fields according to relativity are bound into one source. So everytime you see that solar magnetic flare, you are also seeing an electric arc. Whenever you see a Coronal Mass Ejection you are also seeing a Double Layer explosion. (Current carrying double layers may arise in plasmas carrying a current. Various instabilities can be responsible for the formation of these layers. One example is the Buneman instability which occurs when the streaming velocity of the electrons (basically the current density divided by the electron density) exceeds the electron thermal velocity of the plasma. Double layers (and other phase space structures) are often formed in the non-linear phase of the instability. One way of viewing the Buneman instability is to describe what happens when the current (in the form of a zero temperature electron beam) has to pass through a region of decreased ion density. In order to prevent charge from accumulating, the current in the system must be the same everywhere (in this 1D model). The electron density also has to be close to the ion density (quasineutrality), so there is also a dip in electron density. The electrons must therefore be accelerated into the density cavity, to maintain the same current density with a lower density of charge carriers. This implies that the density cavity is at a high electrical potential. As a consequence, the ions are accelerated out of the cavity, amplifying the density perturbation. Then there is the situation of a double-double layer, of which one side will most likely be convected away by the plasma, leaving a regular double layer. This is the process in which double layers are produced along planetary magnetic field lines in so-called Birkeland currents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_%28plasma%29) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current) (http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/06/04/solar-stagnation-2/) (http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-sun-verified/?article=74fgmwne)
We do know that currents traveling in the same direction attract and currents traveling in opposite directions repel (http://techtv.mit.edu/tags/441-physics/videos/813-mit-physics-demo—-forces-on-a-current-carrying-wire). Just as two positives repel and positive and negative attract (http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-2-electric-field-and-dipoles/) The atom can never be explained gravitationally, untill you realize that the electric force IS the gravitational force.
I have shown by using your very textbook descriptions that every mathematical formula you use to describe the curvature of spacetime is tied back to charge and the calculations Einstein derived from Maxwell. And charges that are moving in relation to one another are an electrical current. Einstein was a great man, but he was also a man with great integrety and always maintained that he was not satisfied with the theory.
Not because it was wrong, (it is incomplete as Newtonian gravity was not replaced by Relativity, Relativity just added to it,) but because the calculations are derived from Electromagnetic forces and then the electric part is discarded as if electricity only happens on Earth. This is especially confusing in light of the fact that the photon, the particle that defines the limit of velocity and time, is an Electromagnetic phenomenon. It is beyond comprehension how the one particle that defines the very meaning of velocity and time, can be something that is then excluded in everything else, although it is everything else that makes this photon exist. It is a byproduct, an emission of energy from a charged particle, an electron moving in relation to protons and nuetrons in the magnetic field the electric charge produces. As we know, Electromagnetic induction is the production of an electric current across a conductor moving through a magnetic field. It underlies the operation of generators, transformers, induction motors, electric motors, synchronous motors, and solenoids.
The only known way to create a magnetic field is with an electric current. But what about kitchen magnets someone has asked. Kitchen magnets are made magnetic by passing certain elements under a strong magnetic field that is produced by an electric current. Heat above 100°C starts to cause magnetized materials to demagnetize. The Earth is supposed to contain a magnetic core yet “The temperature of the inner core can be estimated using experimental and theoretical constraints on the melting temperature of impure iron at the pressure (about 330 GPa) of the inner core boundary, yielding estimates of 5,700 K (5,430 °C; 9,800 °F).” The Earth formed from a ball of molten material according to theory. How is Earth’s magnetic field maintained in temperatures where magnets can not exist? The only way known to create a magnetic field is with electricity. The magnetic field created by the electrical current can then be used to permanently align the electrons of materials capable of being magnetized. The entire sun even at its coolest temperatures could not maintain a magnetic field unless it was being constantly regenerated by an electric current.
For those that asked about weather and how the Sun can affect earth:
One puzzle of the Sun is the “rice grain” appearance of its photosphere which gave rise to the phrase “photospheric granulation.” Scientists now believe that each granule is the top of a “convection cell” because the opaque gases of the Sun, in the nuclear fusion model, need a mechanism for slowly transferring internal heat to the surface. The “granulation” must therefore be the “boiling gases” forced upward by million degree temperatures beneath the surface.
Immediately, problems arise with this interpretation. The gas density in the photosphere diminishes rapidly with height so that convection there should be completely turbulent. Instead, the granules seem to quietly appear, grow brighter for some minutes, then fade. As one proponent of standard theory concedes, “Convection remains the outstanding unsolved problem in photospheric physics.”
The statement confirms what Ralph Juergens wrote years earlier: “…Photospheric granulation is explainable in terms of convection only if we disregard what we know about convection. Surely the cellular structure is not to be expected.” Juergens proposed instead that “a [photospheric] granule may be viewed as a relatively dense, highly luminous, secondary plasma that springs into being in the embrace of a thinner, less luminous, primary plasma. …We are led directly to ask whether the granules might not be akin to certain highly luminous tufts of discharge plasma variously described in the literature as anode glows, anode tufts, and anode arcs.
science:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_glow_discharge
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050427sun.htm
Many more references are available:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Electric_glow_discharge
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040917electric-weather.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
That weather and the Birkeland currents that connect Sun to Earth are directly related as a means of charging the Earth’s upper atmosphere explains things much better than standard models. In a universe that is 99.999% plasma one must “EXPECT” these things from having studied plasma, in contrast to those that haven’t and are always “surprised” when technology can finally detect them, even though they wern’t looking for it until it stumbled upon them.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/121707electricsun.htm
Yet after all the direct evidence the mention of electricity in space immediately brings direct confrontation, with the supporters of standard cosmology degrading into name calling beacuse without evidence they have no counter arguments. Instead of gladly following up on a theory which explains almost every structure in space as a true scientist would, they pretend the data does not exist, or make up imaginary fairy dust to explain away the descrepencies (Dark Matter to explain flat rotation curves of galaxies and Dark Energy to explain why DM doesn’t allow for an expanding universe. Now if they would only turn DM into plasma and DE into electric and magnetic fields cosmology would surge ahead.
The most detractors of the Plasma Universe usually know about plasma is it makes pretty displays in a plasma ball. The rest they learn in the 5 minutes they bother to try to read about it in an attempt to have an answer. These same distractors are the ones that will claim that can’t be without having read one single thing on plasma up until that point, yet suddenly they are experts on it with answers that directly conflict with known scientific facts and laboratory experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations_in_curved_spacetime
“In physics, Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetime govern the dynamics of the electromagnetic field in curved spacetime (where the metric may not be the Minkowski metric) or where one uses an arbitrary (not necessarily Cartesian) coordinate system. These equations can be viewed as a generalization of the vacuum Maxwell’s equations which are normally formulated in the local coordinates of flat spacetime. But because general relativity dictates that the presence of electromagnetic fields (or energy/matter in general) induce curvature in spacetime, Maxwell’s equations in flat spacetime should be viewed as a convenient approximation.
The electromagnetic field also admits a coordinate-independent geometric description, and Maxwell’s equations expressed in terms of these geometric objects are the same in any spacetime, curved or not. Also, the same modifications are made to the equations of flat Minkowski space when using local coordinates that are not Cartesian. For example, the equations in this article can be used to write Maxwell’s equations in spherical coordinates. For these reasons, it may be useful to think of Maxwell’s equations in Minkowski space as a special case, rather than Maxwell’s equations in curved spacetimes as a generalization.
It was proposed over 100 years ago that such plasma structures exist in space because of the electrically charged state of plasma and its ability to conduct charge so redily. It is these electric currents that cause the elves and sprites at the Double Layer Boundry that seperates the Earth’s charge from the surrounding space, which eventially discharge into our atmosphere in sometimes visible forms as lightning. This is why spacecraft entering orbit become charged with voltage surges that caused havoc until they were shielded from such affects (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19690022628_1969022628.pdf). NASA has known for years that space is not neutrally charged. The electrical connection from Sun to Earth is there as predicted 100 years ago, and now we find them on Jupiter and Saturn between them and their moons. We see these plasma structures stretching from galaxy to galaxy, plasma, by definition a charged medium.
Believe whatever you choose, but your search for the source of gravity will always be fruitless and your solar and galactic models will always require fairy dust to pacth them until you stick the electric back into Electromagnetism.
Have a nice day all!
“””””…..kuhnkat says:
July 13, 2012 at 8:39 am
I guess there is something wrong with me!!
“Anybody who is not totally freaked out by the Hubble Deep Field Photographs, simply has nothing going on between their ears.”
Freaked out? Nope. Awe struck is more like it……”””””
You use your metaphor, and I’ll use my metaphor; that’s whate metaphors are phor.
johnnythelowery says:
July 13, 2012 at 3:29 pm
“None of these number are calculated from EU theory. They are either observed or calculated from standard theories, or at times wrong. If you disagree, show me which numbers are calculated from EU theory, and how.
Here is your chance to be brilliant, go for it.
I would say that if you don’t or can’t, the discussion is brought to a deserved end.”
——————————-
Leif: Ever get an answer to your challenge from the EU guys?? Do you have an idea why they havn’t??
I, of course, never got an answer, and it is clear that the reason is that they can’t.
The resident kooks [there is a time to call a spade a spade] are getting more desperate by the minute, recycling the same old, tired, cut-and-paste stuff that they don’t really understand. The Dunning-Kruger effect [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect if I’m allowed to use Wikipedia since I do understand the effect] finds substantial support right here on WUWT. It might even be interesting to write a paper on that…
Some of the worst offenders in the personal attack department [“mental disorder”, “evidence of poor judgement”, “no grounding in science”, “piss off”, “not stoop to your level”, “waste our time”, “what sort of person are you”, “Insufferable!”, …] are just being deservedly repaid in their own coin. I do not apologize for such repayment.
They often use a tried method of obscurantism: instead of answering specific questions, they respond with a barrage of cut-n-paste nonsense that does not address the issue and takes time to deal with. There is serious science in the topic. It can be discussed on several levels [as the thread demonstrates] so there is ample opportunity to learn at the individual level. The deliberate [I don’t know how else to describe it] avoidance of engaged discussion is a sad comment on the people doing this. In a sense, modern cosmology is the greatest story ever told. Humans have pondered these questions for [uncounted] millennia and we are beginning to get some answers. Sad that some commenters here [the same ones as always] throw away that hard-won story.
Myrrh,
What Einstein imagined was that subjective filtering by his mind created reality – he imagined because the perception of time slowed or speeded up depending on one’s state of mind, that this actually altered the objective physical world around us for everyone..
Uh, no, exactly the opposite. Relativity has nothing to do with subjective mental states. It merely says that a clock traveling on a train at a high relative speed will move more slowly than one at a standstill. All physical processes will slow down. On the other hand, because everything slows down, the brain will slow accordingly, and will see no change in its own relative space. The world outside the train will seem to be speeding up, however.
This has of course been proven innumerable times, even by using actual clocks in airplanes traveling in opposite directions.
It didn’t prove anything of his theory, all it showed was basic Newton that gravity pulls in matter.
Light is not a form of matter. It is a form of energy, and has no mass that can be affected by gravitation.
Einstein’s gravity is nonsensical, a mass’s weight distoring ‘spacetime’ in a vortex is only going to be on one side of that mass, the opposite side will be a bulge into ‘spacetime’. Is this how we got the ‘flat universe’? That ubiquitous flat rubber mat distorted to show a ball careering into the vortex centre?
I’m not sure even a single word of this makes sense. Mass has no weight. Weight does not distort spacetime. Gravity does. It does so according to the inverse square law, uniformly, on all sides. There is no “opposite side” to space. There is no such thing as a flat universe, unless it has no mass or energy. And if it lacks these, is it a universe at all?
As for GPS, if this falsified relativity, every physicist would be all over it. Is this really all you’ve got?
Here, take some free courses from MIT, I do not ask you to believe anything i tell you.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/
“That ubiquitous flat rubber mat distorted to show a ball careering into the vortex centre?”
Yet if gravity is nothing more than curved space-time tell me one thing. A large mass sitting on a rubber sheet would make a large indentation, and that indentation would induce smaller nearby masses to role toward the indentation. This is an analogy for curved Space-Time, which is likewise supposed to be the cause of bodies accelerating toward large masses. The reasoning in the analogy further suggests that target bodies simply respond instantly to the local curvature of the underlying Space-Time medium (like the rubber sheet). Therefore, any delay associated with altering that local curvature would not produce aberration, and the target body would appear to respond instantaneously to the source unless the source suddenly changed its motion.
The rubber sheet analogy is represented as a way of visualizing why bodies attract one another. However, in that regard, it is highly defective. A target body sitting on the side of an indentation would stay in place, with no tendency to roll downhill, unless there were already a force such as gravity underneath the rubber sheet pulling everything downhill. And this failure of the analogy helps us identify the precise problem with the curved Space-Time description of gravity – the lack of causality. Without consideration of why a target body is induced to accelerate through space, and how quickly it receives updates of information about how to accelerate through space, neither the Space-Time curvature explanation nor the rubber sheet analogy can help us understand. There must already be a force beneath your rubber sheet acting on the target body to cause it to roll “downhill” That force is the EM force.
Steven says:
July 13, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Here, take some free courses from MIT
How about you take it yourself: at 0:07 into the video of lecture 17:
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-02-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2002/video-lectures/lecture-17-motional-emf-and-dynamos/ you are reminded of what you learned in lecture 16: “we saw how a changing magnetic can produce a current”, this is what happens in Nature and Plasmas
Steven says:
July 13, 2012 at 8:50 pm
There must already be a force beneath your rubber sheet acting on the target body to cause it to roll “downhill” That force is the EM force.
It looks you like are back to square one. Still don’t know what the forces are. And did not heed Anthony’s advice.
And if you understood the lecture you would know the magnetic field was caused by the movement of charged particles, an electric current. But you just skipped to the one you thought might bolster your defense if no one else bothered to study it, without taking the courses that lead up to it, that is why it is lecture 17 not lecture 1. But you always seem to leave the electro out of electromagnetic forces, why is this? Electricity, the very thing that makes your muscles contract so that you can walk, the very thing that makes it possible to form thoughts, to see the world around you. You would not exist without it. Even with all the gravity in the world you cannot get two particles to slam together at the subatomic level until you accelerate them in EM fields at near c. This is because the EM force both attracts and repels.
This is a general statement:
The agora was a square in ancient Athens, the market place, where every citizen could discourse on any subject. One could call Socrates a fool with no penalties except the peer pressures of the market place, and peers in the agora by definition have an average IQ of 100.
The current agora is the internet. Anything can be discussed and anybody with an internet connection can have his/her say.
What one should keep in mind is that discussing in the agora is fun, but certainly not definitive of anything nor a school where knowledge could be accumulated coherently. For that, there were the philosophical schools, which had teachers and students. It is from those schools that we have Plato, Pythagoras etc. The discussions in the agora were “έπεα πτερόεντα”, “flying words”.
Correspondingly, our schools exist in the universities and research institutes where it takes dedication and an enormous lot of elbow grease to reach the level of current, in this case, physics understanding.
It is very often that in the current agora, the internet, one. finds people bashing Einstein, disagreeing with any scientific models in any discipline. The people like Leif, who want to educate the public, find themselves in word battles with little meaning, talking at cross purposes.
It is not that the current cosmological theories are written in stone and professors of the subject the current popes, infallible. It is that the current theories will be falsified, if they will, not by
votes and arguments in the agora, but by scholars who have spent the years in elbow grease and thoroughly understand the current status. When Einstein posited his ground breaking theories, Special and General Relativity he was thoroughly conversant with the mathematical theories of his time. That’s why it is called “Lorenz transformation”. It was found by Lorenz within Maxwell;s electromagnetic theory. The genius of Einstein was in thinking outside the box.
The problem is that one has to thoroughly know the box, before one can think outside the box.
Most of the people commenting on this thread, in this current agora, are commenting without knowing the box, just popularized outlines. It is not possible to encapsulate twentieth century physics without mathematics, as some demand, as if one can make a QED argument in the agora. One cannot..
People who are seriously interested should start studying from Physics 101 reach General Relativity 401 and then discuss in the appropriate forums for such level of understanding their new insights, not the internet agora.
Yes, current cosmological models may be superseded, by new data, new insights. This will not happen here.
Steven says:
July 13, 2012 at 9:10 pm
And if you understood the lecture you would know the magnetic field was caused by the movement of charged particles, an electric current.
You need a magnetic field to create a current…
Leif says:
“You need a magnetic field to create a current…”
Except your previous statement was more complete. You need a changing magnetic field to create a current.
But Leif, you assured me that magnetic fields “out there” are FROZEN IN the plasma.somehow. (I don’t remember the explanation of how that happens or is retained.) So, if the magnetic field is frozen in how can it be changing to create a current??? You still are ignoring the simple fact that current is the movement of charged particles in a general direction. This will create a magnetic field. are those charged particles a varying magnetic field Leif??
I keep thinking Chicken and Egg!! Except, we don’t need a magnetic field to create ions or a charge do we?? Can we create a magnetic field, frozen in or not, without current or charge??
Jim G says:
July 12, 2012 at 9:18 am
After all, it is mathmatical models which tell us that there cannot possibly be that much additional baryonic matter out there
No, observations show that:
http://www.nicadd.niu.edu/~bterzic/PHYS652/Lecture_10.pdf
Almost the entire earth is shall we say magnetically “neutral”, since you are fond of that word. Yet two particles that are not magnetically attractive as they cannot be picked up by a magnet, will in space drift together. This is because of the charge of the particles, course 1 through 15. The movement of one charge in proximity to another creates an electric current which produces the magnetic field. This field since it is a time varying magnetic field, not static, induces further charge in the surrounding particles, which as we know then creates a stronger magnetic field. In plasma this action confines the electric current into filaments termed Birkeland Currents. You want the magnet to move against a conductor or vice versa without any causative action. The only way two subatomic particles is known to move in relation to another is from charge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29
“Composite particles also possess magnetic moments associated with their spin. In particular, the neutron possesses a non-zero magnetic moment despite being electrically neutral. This fact was an early indication that the neutron is not an elementary particle. In fact, it is made up of quarks, which are electrically charged particles. The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions.”
It is the moving electrical charge which creates the magnetic field. Because the neutron had a non-zero magnetic field being electrically neutral, it was realized it was NOT an elementary particle, instead it was the moving electrical charges of the quarks which cause the magnetic moment. Magnetism only enhances a charged particles current through the Lorentz force.
Since Leif seeems to be favorable to outside the box thinking, here are some more:
a critique of Dark Matter and Energy:
http://milesmathis.com/dark2.pdf
and an alternative solution for the apparent issues with the consensus model(s):
http://milesmathis.com/mond.html
compared to believing in non-matter that interacts wih matter non-gravitationally and is otherwise invisible Miles’ charge field is perfectly believable!!
Oh yeah, that reminds me of another hole in my knowledge. Since dark matter isn’t baryonic and doesn’t have graviation and does have a repulsion, why would it lense light like baryonic matter???
Night all.
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 1:05 pm
George E Smith, Anna, anyone, again,
What is this space that can expand, and what does it expand into?
I really hope for an answer. … The balloon analogy, like the raisens in bread analogy does nothing for me.
Maybe plate-tectonics? Let’s say you have two cities, Los Angeles and San Diego. When an earthquake happens, these two cities can move apart. But LA has not “moved”, it is still on the “its” spot. Neither has SD “moved”, it is still on “its” spot.
Or tried another way, you could think of positions in 3D space as locations on a 3D wire-mesh – and the mesh is being pulled apart. Sure we can move on the mesh, but even if we sit tight, we are being pulled apart from each other (gravitational clustering of the local (super) group non withstanding).
I think the problem is that we think of space as “nothing”, we envision it as empty vacuum – but space is “something” in itself.
[snip – bogus email address – fix it or stop commenting here – Anthony]
“There must already be a force beneath your rubber sheet acting on the target body to cause it to roll “downhill”
Gravity is most certainly a force. Relativity did not alter that basic understanding. It merely says that it is a force which curves space in the process of attracting mass. The greater the force, the greater the curvature, and the greater the acceleration. They all go together.
And to all the people who have a problem that you can not directly observe dark matter (and therefore reject it as a article of faith):
:: Can you directly observe air? ::
If you reject belief in dark matter, you should belief in air as well.
We may not know what this “dark matter” exactly is, but is it is there, we can most certainly observe some of its effects (and in some ways, it acts very much like ordinary matter, in some ways it does not, so we think it is something “matter like” but “not matter”). And we will tease out one day what exactly it is – piece by piece.
Same as we did with this “air” thing. We knew that “something” was there, even if we could not directly observe it (at room temperature in a lab). We could observe its effects (just wave your hand). And we teased out what this “air” was – peace by peace.
Nobody is saying we have the full picture – we don’t. At least nobody credible is saying that (unlike the EU hacks who tell you they can “explain everything” by some magical currents, and magically separated electrical charges). Science is most interesting when you are in the middle of teasing out something – and here we are, looking at the very fabric of the universe itself. I think it is exciting.
Myrrh,
Bodily processes slow down when you’re travelling faster? Bacteria in the gut go into slow motion? But it appears to you that it is still working in real time? You’d be dead in seconds. The world outside the train seem to be speeding up while you’re going faster on a train through it? Appears to be. Appears is the operative word. These are alterations of perception, not of physical changes in the matter on and off the train. These are fantasy mental pictures. That’s all they are.
Ah, no. It has nothing to do with mental perception. Clocks move more slowly when in motion. They have no minds. Subatomic particles decay more slowly when travelling faster. This isn’t subjective.
The train analogy is for demonstration purposes only. No human has ever traveled fast enough to actually notice the slowing of time relative to his surroundings. One would have to travel a fairly good percentage of the speed of light to encounter such things. Even astronauts only encounter time distortions of thousandths of seconds. It takes finely tuned atomic clocks to notice these distortions.
Of course light is matter. Photons are particles. And gosh, are you really saying that energy isn’t matter??
Right. Energy can be converted to matter under the right conditions, but it isn’t matter. Photons are massless particles, to the extent that they are particles at all. It’s even misleading to say that they are particles. They only appear to act like particles when certain types of experiments are conducted. Under other conditions, they appear to be waves. So in a sense, they are neither, but just seem to be like one or the other depending on your viewpoint. Something like an optical illusion.
Light slows down through different mediums, it slows down in travelling from the Sun to Earth, in the atmosphere and in the oceans – it is slowed down in the oceans some 14/15 times more than in the atmosphere – it is slowed down a lot passing through a diamond which is why we get all the brilliant colours, colours are affected differently, blue slows down more than red. That’s what reflection and scattering are all about, light is bent or scattered or transmitted through without being absorbed which means it is slowed down at each encounter of meeting matter.
Yes, and all that is due to their wave-like properties.
So, without mass or energy the universe would be flat somehow proves the universe is not flat because it has objects with mass on it distorting it?
The proof of the curvature of space is not in circular argument (pun intended), but in experiment that verifies the predictions made by Einstein’s theory, which are different from the predictions made by Newtonian gravitational theory. Einstein’s theory stands until it fails to pass experimental tests, and not because you may have trouble imagining the world it describes.
Just because it sound oh so bloody clever, doesn’t mean it is.
I do wish you would take those words to heart.
The claim that the body’s functions go into slow motion but somehow are experienced as if at normal speed is what you, generic, need to show proof of because that is your claim. You can’t use the GPS example – it already has a physical explanation.
I’m not sure you are grasping the meaning of the word “relativity”. Time is not distorted in the viewer’s own mind or experience. It is only distorted relative to some object traveling at a different speed. A person in moving around the kitchen is only in motion relative to the kitchen. In relation to themselves, they are motionless, and hence experience no time distortion. They only notice a time distortion when examining those people or objects who are not moving along with them. Kind of like you don’t notice that you are moving at hundreds of miles an hour on the surface of a rotating globe which is traveling 29 miles per second around the sun, because everything around you is also traveling at these same speeds. You only notice this speed relative to objects outside the earth. You don’t even feel dizzy. Or do you?
Should read:
:: Can you directly observe air? ::
If you reject belief in dark matter, you should reject belief in air as well.
(Oh well: The dangers of insufficient caffeine supply – A case study)
David says:
July 12, 2012 at 5:16 pm
This is my fourth request for some insight into the concept of space expanding. …
How does space expand, and what does it expand into?
Well, how does space expand? That is a very excellent question. What causes this expansion we can observe? I think the brightest minds in the world are right at it. I think they call it dark energy, if I am not mistaken. It is like 1491. I think it is exciting. In some decades under-grad students will have to learn this how and most of them will find it boring – at the moment, you can pocket a Nobel if you etch out a part of the how. Of course, one doesn’t work anymore alone, in one little room (which you call your “lab”), with a pad, and maybe one little experiment – nowadays you need billions (if not trillions) of $ worth of satellites, and particle accelerates, and giant laser interferometers, and what not.
But at the moment, we don’t know excactly what causes the expansion. We have a lot to find out, and again, I think it is exciting.
As to the “where does space expand to”? The short answer: We suspect there is nothing “outside”, as we suspect that the universe is infinite, without limits or bounds (mind boggling concept, as “infinites” are only used by those lazy mathematicians, who fill in infinity where ever they don’t know what to do – as opposed to manly physicists, who don’t use infinites, and most certainly not for real life manly physics).
We can observe a bubble*, which we call the “observable universe” (creative, isn’t it?). We estimate the observable universe at 93 billion light-years across (that comes from the 13.7 billions of year light had time to reach us, modified by the co-moving distance of space expansion itself). As the observable universe is pretty “homogenous”, we estimate that there is some more universe outside of what we can see. As I said, we suspect that this goes on and on and on for infinity. But there is a chance that it “ends”, that there is a border. For this off-chance, there would be some kind of border, and outside of this border would be true nothing: no space, no time, no nothing. (Here a reminder that “empty space”, even if it were a perfect vacuum, is not “empty”, but contains space, contains time, plus all kinds of quantum shenanigans).
* And we are pretty sure of the what we can observe so far.
And if you really want to boggle your mind, you should read about the shape of the universe, the curvature and topology of the universe or the local and the global geometry of the universe …
There are most certainly some Nobels to be made in that field.
@Alexander Feht:
Physics is not a debate. You don’t “win” at physics by pointing out to the audience logical flaws that you suppose your opponent has committed – you need to find actual flaws in the physics. Is it too much to ask of you that you actually try to understand all the observations, and how well (or how poor) the theories fit the observations, and how well (or how poor) the internal consistency of the theories and how well (or how poor) the theories agree with other parts of physics? You think you are intellectual, but you are just a debate heckler.
@Alexander Feht:
One more thing: “Asking” your “opponent” Leif questions, while at the same time insulting him, is a real classy debating strategy. Leif extended much more courtesy to you by at least trying to answer questions, then is warranted by your ignoramus behavior. Do you want to understand and learn? At least try to understand, at least try to ask qualified questions. Or do you want to be a rigorous debate heckler? Then carry on as you do.
kuhnkat says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:37 am
But Leif, you assured me that magnetic fields “out there” are FROZEN IN the plasma.somehow. (I don’t remember the explanation of how that happens or is retained.)
If you change the magnetic field that creates a current, which itself has a magnetic field opposite to the change cancelling the change, so the net result is that the magnetic field cannot change.
So, if the magnetic field is frozen in how can it be changing to create a current???
There are no currents in a uniform plasma. But if plasmas with different properties are adjacent to each other, e.g. have magnetic fields in opposite directions, currents arise at the interface.
You still are ignoring the simple fact that current is the movement of charged particles in a general direction. This will create a magnetic field.
A plasma is electrically neutral so no currents flow in any direction. To maintain a current you need to separate particles with different charge. Then the current will flow to equalize the charges [which stops the current – it is called a short circuit]. You need a magnetic field to separate the charges.
I keep thinking Chicken and Egg!! Except, we don’t need a magnetic field to create ions or a charge do we??
There is sort of a chicken and egg thing. You do not need a magnetic field to create ions or changes. Heating the matter will ionize the matter [e.g. in the Sun when it was initially heated by gravitational contraction and now by nuclear fusion].
Can we create a magnetic field, frozen in or not, without current or charge??
That is indeed a fundamental question. Who laid the first egg? There is a process called the Biermann Battery Effect [see link upthread] that can create a very weak magnetic field, which then by dynamo processes can be amplified.
brokenyogi says:
July 14, 2012 at 3:31 am
It takes finely tuned atomic clocks to notice these distortions.
An experiment that has actually been done is to fly two atomic clocks in opposite directions around the Earth. When they land and compare the time measured by the clocks, the distortion is seen and agrees with the theory: “Hafele and Keating, in 1971, flew caesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, to compare the elapsed time against that of a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Two opposite effects came into play. The clocks were expected to age more quickly (show a larger elapsed time) than the reference clock, since they were in a higher (weaker) gravitational potential for most of the trip (c.f. Pound, Rebka). But also, contrastingly, the moving clocks were expected to age more slowly because of the speed of their travel. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip. Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanoseconds during the westward trip”
@kuhnkat:
You got me. God created a electric universe. He has a giant battery that keeps it all running. It’s that simple. I give up.The EU created by god explains all the observations very neatly. Thank you for point out the obvious. I can now see the light.
(BTW: Everybody can learn something from your use of punctuation marks while hyper-ventilating during a discussion of the physical properties of the universe.)
Tony Mach says:
July 14, 2012 at 6:21 am
@kuhnkat: You got me. God created a electric universe. He has a giant battery that keeps it all running.
There are probably people who believe just that.
Dr.S.
Either relativistic factors making the gravity constant G cancel out , alternatively the constant itself is subject to relativistic treatment, in which case I suggest to consider this calculation .
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:06 am
Either relativistic factors making the gravity constant G cancel out…
Spare us.
There’s another reason it would be near impossible to detect DM in the local solar system. If you look at the very first diagram of DM density variations, on the scale of the embedded galaxy, it shows little variation — the highest density area is much larger than the galaxy-speck in the center. This means our solar system has about the same DM in all directions. Like the center of the sun, you would feel little or no gravity effects being near/in the center of DM mass.
Ah, well, obviously a no go area.
beng says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:25 am
There’s another reason it would be near impossible to detect DM in the local solar system.
The Sun could have collected dark matter through its 5-billion yr travels through the Galaxy. Such DM might have a second order effect on the neutrino production: e.g. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/sep/10/searching-the-sun-for-dark-matter
vukcevic says:
July 14, 2012 at 7:33 am
Ah, well, obviously a no go area.
It is not that, but simply that you are wrong from the outset, e.g. assuming galaxies move [apart from small local movement due to mutual – non relativistic – gravitational effects]. They do not move at all. Space is expanding.
brokenyogi says:
July 14, 2012 at 3:08 am
“There must already be a force beneath your rubber sheet acting on the target body to cause it to roll “downhill”
“Gravity is most certainly a force. Relativity did not alter that basic understanding. It merely says that it is a force which curves space in the process of attracting mass. The greater the force, the greater the curvature, and the greater the acceleration. They all go together.”
Gravity is, indeed, listed as one of the 4 fundamental forces along with electromagnetc, strong nuclear and weak nuclear, its nature, however is that mass curves space, not gravity, which cause particles which are moving to move in a straight line though that line is curved due to curved space. Perhaps a subtle difference. I am sure there is someone out there who will correct me if I am wrong on this interpretation of relativity.
Leif,
I say “math model” since we cannot see the entire universe and cannot therefore observe all of the baryonic matter nor can we see all of the dark baryonic matter such as brown dwarfs, etc. So, your “observation” is actually an estimate based upon a less than complete observation. Another math model, though very simplisticand non algorithmic in nature.
Gary Pearse says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am
…
Would you not agree that there are physicists not willfully ignorant who have issues with dark matter? Was dark matter not postulated because the essentially Newtonian (lets gratuitously throw in: “and Einsteinian”, as is the usual form) gravity could not account for such things as the velocity of the outer spiral arms and other observed discrepancies? Could there be something not right about our idea of gravity – must we enshrine the 100yr old idea in platinum for all time? Gentlemen, no matter how you twist and dance, DM is a mathematical patch on a not-fully-satisfactory theory. Is it legitimate to look for this DM to perserve what we believe about gravity? Yes, of course it is. Is it legitimate to consider the possibility that we have an incomplete or incorrect theory of gravity – that the masters were not infallible. Which is the job of a good skeptic when such a “discovery” is made.
A true skeptic is skeptical of every theory. “Their” theory. “Our” theory. “My” theory.
So let’s see:
1. The Dark Matter theory
There is something that acts in some aspects like “matter”, but not in all aspects.
Some observations differ from our understanding of physics without “dark matter”. The DM theory explains most of these observations reasonably well.
And we don’t know yet “what” Dark Matter is (if it is a form of “matter”).
2. MOND (modified newtonian dynamics)
Some observations differ from our understanding of physics without “MOND”. MOND explains some of these observations, but can’t account for others.
3. Electric Universe or some other Creationism outflow
Looks a lot like post-hoc magical thinking.
.
So as skeptic I would say DM looks most promising, matches reality the best, but is most certainly not settled. MOND is an interesting exercise, but looks a lot like epicycles in the geocentric model – add-ons to save the old theories. EU and all others are just magical thinking, to give god his place in the grand scheme.
So an skeptic would be foremost skeptical of EU, then of MOND and then of DM – a contrarian on the other hand would be attack DM. So what is your position on EU? Have you challenged those promoting EU here?
Jim G says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:10 am
I say “math model” since we cannot see the entire universe and cannot therefore observe all of the baryonic matter nor can we see all of the dark baryonic matter such as brown dwarfs, etc. So, your “observation” is actually an estimate based upon a less than complete observation. Another math model, though very simplisticand non algorithmic in nature.
First, the observable universe is all we can ever be concerned with. Second, there is an important assumption: the laws of physics are the same everywhere. If you don’t believe that, anything goes.
You misunderstand the baryonic point. We deduce from several lines of observations that dark matter is not baryonic, hence brown dwarfs, snowballs in space, what have you, do not play a role.
As to math models: all our understanding is expressed in mathematics that allows us to calculate consequences of the understanding. If you can’t do that, it is not understanding.
While we are at it: Any god worth his (or her) salt would have long ago struck down all those presumptuous creationists who think they have to misrepresent the facts of reality (as discovered by observation) in order give god “his” place. Who do you think you are that you have god a place? How presumptuous is that?
If there is a discoverable “signature” from god, something god intended us to find – let’s say god’s EU battery – then we will find it. If there is not such a signature, if god wants to keep his way mysterious, then why do creationists always try to misrepresent reality? Since when is lying about reality a form of praise of god?
Tony Mach says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:31 am
If there is a discoverable “signature” from god, something god intended us to find – let’s say god’s EU battery – then we will find it. If there is not such a signature, if god wants to keep his way mysterious…
he does not:
“The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. (Psalms 19:1).”
But dragging god[s] into the discussion is not very useful.
And I forgot one thing:
4. Being skeptical of the observations
Of course the measurements could be wrong. Or our interpretations of them. But I’m afraid they are too numerous. And different type of measurements come to the same results. Results that don’t match a our understanding of the world without DM, MOND or any other modification.
So while the will see more measurement with (hopefully) new results that shine a light on new aspects, I think the ship has sailed to doubt the observations.
5. Some outfield theory, that has nothing to do with a new form of “matter” or a modification of gravity
Sure, it’s possible. Until someone formulates such a theory, and until it matches the observations better the DM or MOND, until then this is dreaming of the tooth fairy…
Well let us deduce, Moving charged particles create magnetic fields, Magnetic fields further amplify the electrical field thru the Lorentz force.
“The magnetic moment of the neutron comes from the spins of the individual quarks and their orbital motions.”
It is the moving electrical charge which creates the magnetic field. No fundamental particles moving equals no magnetic field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force
Significance of the Lorentz force
While the modern Maxwell’s equations describe how electrically charged particles and currents or moving charged particles give rise to electric and magnetic fields, the Lorentz force law completes that picture by describing the force acting on a moving point charge q in the presence of electromagnetic fields. Leif, you are trying to put the Lorentz force as the primary mover, when the Lorentz force only applies after a magentic field has formed due to electric current. How do charged particles move? By the attractive or repulsive force of the electric charge. No magnetism is required in a plasma to separate charges, charges do that all by themselves. Doubt that, rub a glass rod with silk, you are separating electric charges, no magnetic field required, only movement, and everything in the universe is moving. The magnetic field only confines particles into a spiral orbit, hence the basic shape of galaxies. It causes things to spiral perpendicular to the electric force. Your own textbooks tell you this. This is why I use “YOUR” textbook descriptions and “YOUR” standard cosmology definitions written by standard cosmologists. You claim I am cutting and pasting, this is because you still do not understand the textbooks those that support standard cosmology wrote.
As for expanding space Einstein deduced his relativistic formulas from the idea that space was static, not expanding. You then take these static formulas and try to impinge them upon an expanding universe and giant gaps are left which you then plug with Dark Matter and Dark Energy. The fact is that all galaxies are in clusters because all galaxies that are a part of a cluster were once one object. This is why your misinterpretation of how the universe formed all point back to one place, which is termed the finger of God. Galaxies eject quasars and proto-galaxies along their polar planes. This is why all galaxy clusters are spread along a line like a string of lights. Not one or two, every single one. All galaxies of a cluster are within a 20 degree arc from the parent galaxies polar axis.
The Birkeland currents extend from these polar axis, the path taken by galactic jets. The magnetic field is ALWAYS perpendicular to the electric force, this is why galaxies have overall spiral shapes, as magnetism causes particles to spiral perpendicular to the electric current. The electrons spiraling in the magnetic fields give off synchrotron radiation (x-rays and gamma rays) because the magnetic field as we have found from the Lorentz force causes further excitation of the charged particles.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/02/galactic-umbilicus-2/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12/29/power-lines/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/05/18/6517/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/19/dark-and-dead/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/04/22/update-dark-matter-recreations-part-one/
The evidence and data is there is one but opens their eyes and looks.
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:48 am
Well let us deduce
You do not deduce, you regurgitate.
This is what EU has to say:
“Any ions and electrons in the vicinity, for example, in the ionosphere, will therefore acquire velocities perpendicular to both B and g under the combined influence of gravity and the magnetic field. Because the velocities of ions and electrons are in opposite directions, this is equivalent to a current flowing in a ring around the equatorial plane.”
So, the current is created from the magnetic field and gravity.
And nowhere does EU provide any numbers deduced from the ‘theory’. Real science is real, because we can calculate the effects of our theories. So, provide some numbers.
Leif Svalgarrd,
You ontinue to blow right by your own faulty picture of magnetic fields in space so I will go over this basic scenarion, so basic that even I understand.
You say the magnetic field is FROZEN IN the plasma. You are telling me the Plasma holds or produces the magnetic field. The plasma as a whole does not do that. The particles making up the plasma does that. Those particles are constantly in motion.
You have sections of Plasma with Frozen in Magnetic fields moving in relation to each other. What produces current Leif?? You yourself stated the magnetic fields moving against each other produce current. yet you continue to insist there are no electrical currents in space. you tell me all the basics needed to produce a current and then deny there is one.
Sorry Leif, you really should give up and accept what basic physics tell you will happen.
Maybe you should go over to Miles Mathis site and discuss it with someone who actually can show you the math instead of trying to convince bozos like me.
Like most you start from the assumption that charges need separation. Plasma by definition is a charge separated medium. It is your basic premise that is incorrect. Charge separation already exists as 99.999% of the universe is plasma. The real question you should be trying to discover is how separate charges are combined.
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040803charge-space.htm
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
Like most you start from the assumption that charges need separation. Plasma by definition is a charge separated medium
Not at all. Plasma is neutral, any charge separation is immediately snuffed out due to the very high conductivity.
“Definition of a plasma [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) ]:
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero)”
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
[…]
“So, the current is created from the magnetic field and gravity” as per EU theory.
I have given you this link at least 5 times, You want numbers, read them. there are so many peer-reviewed papers with links to other papers, published textbook explanations and formulas on this website beyond counting. But you must first click on a link to one of those articles that will give you references to the papers and all the numbers you want. I’ve shown by your very own theories what you say can not be. if you want to learn, read, I wont do your learning for you, nor will I try to explain again for the 10th time why a neutron with a magnetic moment left your theorists with no choice but to declare it was NOT a fundamental particle because it apparently HAD a magnetic moment without charge. So they then went looking for the original cause of the magnetic moment. Why would they be looking for charge that caused the magnetic moment if it was magnetic moments that caused charge?????
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Special:Allpages
It was once believed that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain how positive protons could stay together and not fly apart, so the strong force was postulated as this force. It was discovered in later years that they were not fundamental particles, but were composed of quarks controlled by the Color Charge force. The strong force was then considered a sub-field of the Color Charge field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction
“Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons’ mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.”
As we delve deeper we find this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon
“Gluons ( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus.”
So ” one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction,” and to be considered a fundamental force ” In particle physics, fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions.”
Its was first wrongly asserted that the protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-filed of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet you to this day call it a fundamental force, when in reality it is the color charge of the fundamental particles that governs the atom.
As for Color charge we read:
Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
Every single math you use basis itself on the charge of the particle, not its magnetic moment. Shall we now discuss the photon, the particle that defines velocity and time in relativity????
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:26 am
I have given you this link at least 5 times
None of the link and the papers it points to are giving a single number calculated from EU ‘theory’. If you know of one, direct us straight to that one.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:03 am
galaxies move …… They do not move at all. Space is expanding.
Thanks, I thought you may come up with a useful remark,
‘velocity v’
replaced with
v is the first ‘time derivative’ of the distance between two bodies due to the space expansion, and can be expressed as d / t.
Any other obvious errors?
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:16 am
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:09 am
Like most you start from the assumption that charges need separation. Plasma by definition is a charge separated medium
Not at all. Plasma is neutral, any charge separation is immediately snuffed out due to the very high conductivity.
“Definition of a plasma [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) ]:
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero)”
Finish out the definition:
Definition of a plasma
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero). It is important to note that although they are unbound, these particles are not ‘free’. When the charges move they “generate electrical currents with magnetic fields”, and as a result, they are affected by each other’s fields. This governs their collective behavior with many degrees of freedom.[2][6] A definition can have three criteria:
1. The plasma approximation: Charged particles must be close enough together that each particle influences many nearby charged particles, rather than just interacting with the closest particle (these collective effects are a distinguishing feature of a plasma). The plasma approximation is valid when the number of charge carriers within the sphere of influence (called the Debye sphere whose radius is the Debye screening length) of a particular particle is higher than unity to provide collective behavior of the charged particles. The average number of particles in the Debye sphere is given by the plasma parameter, “Λ” (the Greek letter Lambda).
2. Bulk interactions: The Debye screening length (defined above) is short compared to the physical size of the plasma. This criterion means that interactions in the bulk of the plasma are more important than those at its edges, where boundary effects may take place. When this criterion is satisfied, the plasma is quasineutral.
3. Plasma frequency: The electron plasma frequency (measuring plasma oscillations of the electrons) is large compared to the electron-neutral collision frequency (measuring frequency of collisions between electrons and neutral particles). When this condition is valid, electrostatic interactions dominate over the processes of ordinary gas kinetics.
Stop relying on one sentence out of context.
Jim G says:
July 13, 2012 at 2:02 pm
… Dark matter and dark energy may indeed exist but the convenience of these circumstances to existing theory would seem to call any true scientist to question and be skeptical that we are not just possibly missing something in our theory and not to be so dogmatic in quoting it as fact.
Either someone has oversold DM to you, or you make more of it than it is. We are missing what dark matter actually is. There are some theories, but… All DM says that there is something “matter like” (in some properties), but not like matter “that we know” (in other properties). So far, this explains the reality of observations rather well. Better than other explanations. But DM does not say what DM is, what its other properties are, how it interacts in any other ways. That’s still out there for us to find out. But because the observations so far match “something matter-like” rather well, “something matter-like” is the best candidate to look for. If it really is some kind of other matter, we’ll find out what it is. If it is actually something else (e.g. MOND), someone will come up with a theory that better matches reality, makes better predictions and so on, and science will move on to this theory. Physics is not like “climate science” – in physics there is a strong incentive that your theory actually represents reality better then the other theory.
Tony Mach says:
July 14, 2012 at 8:10 am
“Gary Pearse says:
July 13, 2012 at 11:29 am”
Tony would have me also comment on the electric universe which he derides, and suggests I’m not a good sceptic if I don’t rank the theories in order of probability: DM, Gravity correction, EU.
I’m sceptical of a lot of things but I’m just dealing with DM here – I make the point that there is evidence of gravity needing correction from the only direct measurements that we appear to have and that is from the “Pioneer Anomaly” You weren’t impressed.
Carrick says:
July 13, 2012 at 12:36 pm
“Gary: ..,..NOBODY started out assuming that DM was the only possible explanation, what you are suggesting is just whacky nonsense.”
From Wiki on “Dark Matter”
“It was first postulated by Jan Oort in 1932 to account for the orbital velocities of stars in the Milky Way and Fritz Zwicky in 1933 to account for evidence of “missing mass” in the orbital velocities of galaxies in clusters.”
It wouldn’t be the first time I have been deemed a ‘rara avis’ (strange bird) but maybe less so a whacky person. I’m going to snuggle up closer to Steven Mosher (whom I frequently disagree with) who stated my case in the more elegant, brief language of logic:
Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm
“At the simplest level, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. With our current understanding of physics, there MUST be a lot more matter (ie mass) in each galaxy than we can currently detect.
2. Or, our understanding of physics (ie gravity) is flawed.”
Gary Pearse says:
July 14, 2012 at 10:29 am
……………
I also have lot of differences with Mosher, he is good guy though; this time Ill go with Mosher’s point 2.
If there ‘dark matter’ was created during BB, background radiation should show it, it does not.
If it was ‘incredibly’ residue of a ‘previous universe’ and cooled down to 0K it should be called ‘prouparcho (προϋπάρχω = before time) matter’.
However that is less likely than ‘relativistic gravity’, so I’ll go with the more likely solution.
So Mosher 2. has it..
Gary Pearse says:
“Steven Mosher says:
July 11, 2012 at 9:59 pm
“At the simplest level, there are only two possible conclusions:
1. With our current understanding of physics, there MUST be a lot more matter (ie mass) in each galaxy than we can currently detect.
2. Or, our understanding of physics (ie gravity) is flawed.”
Or:
it is the electrical attraction and repulsive properties of plasma combined with the longitudinal force of the magnetic field it generates that holds galaxies together, a force 10^39 powers stronger than gravity is postulated to be. About the same mathematical strength you need for DM to be a viable player in the field of astrophysics. Plasma is sparse, but because of its large volume it carries tremendous currents in a slow drift. You can only see the affects of this plasma, because at that distance you are unable to make out the individual electrons and ions of the plasma. The only mass you are able to observe is that which is emitting the EM force in powerful enough concentrations to be detectable at that range. You can no more measure the charge in a plasma encompassing light-years, than you can measure the solar wind in a few meters, but instead only determine its affect by measuring extremely large volumes of space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_wind
“In January 1959, the Soviet satellite Luna 1 first directly observed the solar wind and measured its strength.[10][11][12] They were detected by hemispherical ion traps. The discovery, made by Konstantin Gringauz, was verified by Luna 2, Luna 3 and by the more distant measurements of Venera 1. Three years later its measurement was performed by Americans (Neugebauer and collaborators) using the Mariner 2 spacecraft.[13]
However, the acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker’s theory. The gravitational and electromagnetic explanation for this acceleration is, however, detailed in an earlier paper by 1970 Nobel laureate for Physics, Hannes Alfvén.”
http://ia600302.us.archive.org/14/items/RotationOfMagnetizedSphereWithApplicationToSolarRadiation/AlfvenH.RemarksOnTheRotationOfAMagnetizedSphereWithApplicationToSolarRadiationarkivForMatematikAstronomiOchFysik28a61942.pdf
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 11:36 am
So you are going with?
1) DM? 2) flawed physics?
Given the two choices, I would say that it’s more likely our physics is “flawed”, meaning incomplete, than that an entirely new and almost undetectable form of matter must exist to keep our current physics viable. I’m not even sure why this is controversial. Genuine science has only been around a few hundred years. Are we really arrogant enough to think that we have gotten it all just so right this early in the game? Just as a betting man, I’m sure there are all kinds of huge truths about physics that we have not yet discovered or understood. And sure, DM and DE could be among them. But that doesn’t make them “true”, any more than EU or other whacky theories are true. They are both whacky theories. Maybe some are whackier than others, but sometimes these arguments are like pots calling kettles black.
Gary Pearse says:
July 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 11:36 am
So you are going with?
1) DM? 2) flawed physics?
I’ll take 3) A plasma universe that behaves as all plasmas do.
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 10:16 am
“Definition of a plasma [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) ]:
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero)”
Finish out the definition:
The rest are just various second order effects on small scales [Debye lengths and such]. The first sentence covers the fundamental property.
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 9:56 am
The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons.
The color charge has nothing to do with electric charge.
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 11:36 am
You can no more measure the charge in a plasma encompassing light-years, than you can measure the solar wind in a few meters
There is no net charge in a plasma on scales significantly larger than the Debye length [see definition of plasma], which in the solar system is of the order of 10 meter.
Hannes Alfven was a good friend of mine and we have often discussed his ideas [which are not all valid]. You claim the his paper is from 1971, but it is actually from 1941, so way out of date. In spite of that, the paper does contains some truth. Alfven writes that his ideas may be valid under the following suppositions:
“Suppose that the sum […] is electrically neutral […]. Suppose further that in the space around the sun, the number of charged particles is so small that they do not cause appreciable electric fields” then it is possible that the sun’s rotation is retarded. That did probably happen very early in the formation of the solar system when the formation of the planetary disk slowed the rotation of the sun by a factor of ten or so, but pay attention to the conditions Alfven was setting for this to happen [as I outlined above].
Steven says:
July 14, 2012 at 11:36 am
However, the acceleration of the fast wind is still not understood and cannot be fully explained by Parker’s theory. The gravitational and electromagnetic explanation for this acceleration is, however, detailed in an earlier paper by 1970
The paper contains no explanation of this acceleration. Perhaps you can quote the explanation here?
What Alfven was trying to do was to explain is why the solar wind rotates with the sun. He notes “if no considerable space charge is present a charged particle in the space around the magnetized sphere [the sun] must take part in its rotation”
This has nothing to do with the outward acceleration of the solar wind. I’ll put to you that you have no idea what he was talking about.
Apparently you didn’t read page 5 where he shows mathematically where one would speed up in relation to the other. At the time Alfven was not aware of the Birkeland Currents arriving in the Sun which THEMIS has been mapping. His data was not complete, yet he still surmised if an electric current was present the particle would be accelerated. Just like we accelerate particles here on earth. Do you have any idea how much electrical power is required to run CERN? Without which not one particle would ever be accelerated. Even with evidence that shows no electricity no acceleration, you instead try to claim it is thermal reactions (which are now even slower than you assumed). Then you try gravity, even though gravity in no instance has been known to accelerate particles away from the mass. Anything to avoid the electro in electromagnetism.
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:54 am
Apparently you didn’t read page 5 where he shows mathematically where one would speed up in relation to the other.
Quote the exact words here.
At the time Alfven was not aware of the Birkeland Currents arriving in the Sun which THEMIS has been mapping.
There are no Birkeland currents arriving ‘in the Sun’, and THEMIS has not been mapping any such [as it is close to Earth, not the Sun.
Then you try gravity, even though gravity in no instance has been known to accelerate particles away from the mass.
As we have already discussed, the decrease of gravity with distance is what accelerates the solar wind [The De Laval nozzle].
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:54 am
Then you try gravity, even though gravity in no instance has been known to accelerate particles away from the mass.
Here is Parker’s theory: http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/ME451C/SolarWind.pdf
The important words are “His theory says a compressible flow in a divergent channel can go from subsonic to supersonic without having a physical throat—provided there is a retarding body force”
That retarding force is gravity.
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 7:54 am
Then you try gravity, even though gravity in no instance has been known to accelerate particles away from the mass.
Here is another description of how gravity in Parker’s theory helps accelerate the wind:
http://www-solar.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~alan/sun_course/Chapter6/node3.html
Two things to note: 1) Figure 6.1 shows that in solution V, the solar accelerates with distance.
2) the speed at Earth is calculated to be 320 km/sec.
What speed does EU calculate?
Note to Dr. Svalgaard and other readers
Red shift increase is result of ‘relativistic gravitation’ ?
On page 7/11 of
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
Einstein wrote C’=C0(1+F/C^2) where F=Schwerepotential (gravity potential)
What does this mean?
To an observer it would appear that speed of light is lower in the stronger gravitational field.
Translated to the red shift:
Light velocity is a function of gravitational potential, and since gravity ‘constant’ value increases with the distance than the red shift from more distant objects would appear to be greater.
Conclusion must be that the universe expansion is uniform but the increment in the red shift with distance is a consequence of ‘relativistic gravitation’
and our solar system is not the center of universe as the current interpretation of the red shift would imply!
vukcevic says:
July 15, 2012 at 9:37 am
Red shift increase is result of ‘relativistic gravitation’ ?
Photons climbing out of a gravitational well are also red-shifted [can be observed in the laboratory on the Earth]. This has nothing to do with the expansion of space. One more time: don’t pontificate on things you do not understand.
It is the result of relativistic gravitation because that is the EM force.
You may choose to believe in Dark matter if you wish, and an electrically neutral space. But we both know relativity was derived from Maxwell’s equations and that Maxwell’s equations can be written in either curved, flat or Minkowski space.
The Minkowski metric used in relativity is assumed to have the form diag (+1, −1, −1, −1). Where the equations are specified as holding in a vacuum, one could instead regard them as the formulation of Maxwell’s equations in terms of total charge and current.
Already in §10 of his paper on electrodynamics, Einstein used the formula E(kin) = mc^2 (1divided by root 1- v^2/c^2 -1) for the kinetic energy of an electron. In elaboration of this he published a paper (received 27 September, November 1905), in which Einstein showed that when a material body lost energy (either radiation or heat) of amount E, its mass decreased by the amount E/c^2. This led to the famous mass–energy equivalence formula: E=mc^2
Einstein considered the equivalency equation to be of paramount importance because it showed that a massive particle possesses an energy, the “rest energy”, distinct from its classical kinetic and potential energies.
In other words I can derive the same results as relativity and define them in terms of total charge and current. Because relativity was derived from Maxwell’s equations. This is why all measurement of EM radiation (including the sun) are given in the notation of watts.The Neutron possessed a magnetic moment, that gave the scientists a clue (unlike some) that magnetic moments of particles had a primary cause. This is because they are made up of quarks, charged particles that generate magnetic moments because of the complicated interactions of the differing charges as they spin.
Einstein was brilliant. He recognized that particles possessed energy (charge) even at relative rest. That it was not required to move a body in a time varying magnetic field for that body to possess charge. Again, this is what led to the neutron being made up of charged particles, because even at rest, it must possess charge. The movement of this charge in relation to other charges is what causes the magnetic moment in all particles.
Even although it is termed neutral it is not, it is composed of almost equal number of charges that change as they interact with the other quarks within the neutron and the protons in the nucleus and the electron orbiting it and the other atoms nearby. If it was truly neutral, it would posses no magnetic moment. Again why they went looking for the underlying charge of the neutron.
If it is impossible for a neutron to possess a magnetic moment without charge, how is it you believe that magnetic moments can exist anywhere else when it is these same neutrons and protons and electrons thet make up everything that exists??????
So why is the red shift uniform in all directions and increasing from more distant objects?
Are you saying that the Earth is in the centre of the visible universe?
I am not ‘pontificating’ just sayng that calculation shows that gravity ‘constant’ is subject to the relativistic factor, as time is, mass is and speed of light is.
Consequence is that apparent spreading of universe is not greater further away from the Earth in all directions, but the spreading of universe is uniform, and increase in the read shift is consequence of ‘relativistic gravity’
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 10:15 am
But we both know relativity was derived from Maxwell’s equations
No, special relativity was derived from [I have here in front of me Einstein’s 1905 paper] two postulates [assumptions]:
1) “that the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of [Newtonian] mechanics hold good”
2) “that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body” [as observed in the Michelson-Morley experiments].
Then in §6 he shows that Maxwell’s equations are consistent with special relativity.
If it is impossible for a neutron to possess a magnetic moment without charge, how is it you believe that magnetic moments can exist anywhere else when it is these same neutrons and protons and electrons the make up everything that exists
Magnetic moments can be generated by electric currents, themselves generated by conductors moving relative to magnetic fields. The magnetic magnetic of the neutron, and the proton, is due to [fractional] electric charges of the gluons composing it. No mystery there. Those magnetic moments are not what we measure under macroscopic conditions.
My previous question:
“the speed at Earth is calculated [from Parker’s theory] to be 320 km/sec.
What speed does EU calculate?”
goes unanswered. To regain some credibility you should answer my questions as I always try to answer yours [the the extent they make any sense].
vukcevic says:
July 15, 2012 at 10:27 am
So why is the red shift uniform in all directions and increasing from more distant objects?
It is uniform because it is observed to be uniform. The red-shift of the Cosmic Microwave Radiation is 1100 and the CMR is VERY uniform all over the sky.
It is increasing with distance because the light from farther galaxies take longer to reach us, during which time the space has expanded more and thus same waves are spread over a larger distance, thus has a longer wavelength. As simple as that.
Are you saying that the Earth is in the centre of the visible universe?
Of course it is. The visible universe stretches in all directions as far as we can see from the Earth. The visible universe for an alien on a galaxy far away is centered on him and not on us.
Dr.S.
Speed of light in the Einstein’s or in any other equations is the universal electromagnetic constant, so regardless of your interpretation, whenever the speed of light appears, there is a direct physical law reference to the electromagnetic processes, there is no other way around it.
EU hypothesis are not of interest to me, and I have no intention in expanding on their validity or otherwise.
Yes and as we know Parker’s theory based on relativity can be written in and expressed in terms of the energy of the system from Maxwell’s equation, so I get the same answer as you, not surprising since relativity is based upon the speed of light and the energy content of all matter (an electromagnetic phenomenon) governed in a vacuum according to the theory of relativity by Maxwell’s equations. Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
It has been said that it is space that is expanding not galaxies moving away from each other.Could it be that the expansion of space is equivalent to the destruction of energy and this expansion of space started at the time of the big bang so as to remove the energy that had been created.As space moves apart then wavelengths will get stretched and will become flat in time .
I would agree that it’s more likely that DM and DE are true, than that EU is true. But I don’t think the odds are all that great for either of them being true.
If by “DM” one merely means “whatever is causing the gravitational discrepency”, that’s fine, but the theory is much more than a label, it’s an attempt to come up with an answer that preserves the Standard Model, GR, and QM as we know them. But that doesn’t make it true, it just makes it a more conservative approach than something like EU. As Joel Premak, who pretty much came up with the most widely accepted DM theory, has said when asked what he would say if the theory were disproven, “I hope it is, because that would make the universe much more interesting.”
I agree with that sentiment. I vote for a more interesting universe. I think the gravitational discrepencies point in that direction, and that DM is a worthy but probably failed attempt to keep the universe within the bounds of the SM. In fact, part of me likes some things about EU, until one actually looks at the theory’s details, which generally suck. I like Tesla’s approach, and his notion that even things like gravity actually have their roots in electro-magnetism, and that one can do amazing things with magnetic fields if one grasps those roots. My science-fiction side longs for a Tesla-like universe where magnetic field manipulation can produce anti-grativity devices and we can all have our private UFOs to fly around in with infinite cheap energy. Who wants a boring universe filled with mostly DM and DE that only expands into infinitely thin wisps of cosmic vacuum vapor?
” donald penman says:
July 15, 2012 at 12:07 pm
It has been said that it is space that is expanding not galaxies moving away from each other.Could it be that the expansion of space is equivalent to the destruction of energy and this expansion of space started at the time of the big bang so as to remove the energy that had been created.As space moves apart then wavelengths will get stretched and will become flat in time .”
Or could it be that the universe is 99.999% plasma and the photon’s movement through plasma is governed by the EM force depending on the electron density as has been demonstrated in the lab? After all, Red-Shift is a Doppler effect which is caused by a medium. Red-shift is nothing more than an indicator of the electron density in a plasma.
Tell me, the mass of an object is directly related to its energy, velocity, which creates an apparent increase in mass is due to the increased charge or energy of that mass. This is tied into relativity by the warping of space. Energy = mass, mass = energy, the more mass you have the more energy you have and hence the EM force is stronger as is the gravitational attraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_and_special_relativity
The theory of special relativity plays an important role in the modern theory of classical electromagnetism. First of all, it gives formulas for how electromagnetic objects, in particular the electric and magnetic fields, are altered under a Lorentz transformation from one inertial frame of reference to another. Secondly, it sheds light on the relationship between electricity and magnetism, showing that frame of reference determines if an observation follows electrostatic or magnetic laws. Third, it motivates a compact and convenient notation for the laws of electromagnetism, namely the “manifestly covariant” tensor form.
Maxwell’s equations, when they were first stated in their complete form in 1865, would turn out to be compatible with special relativity.” (or is it special relativity is compatible with Maxwell’s equations?) “Moreover, the apparent coincidences in which the same effect was observed due to different physical phenomena by two different observers would be shown to be not coincidental in the least by special relativity. In fact, half of Einstein’s 1905 first paper on special relativity, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies,” explains how to transform Maxwell’s equations.” So relativity is nothing more than transforming Maxwell’s equations into another mathematical notation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
Energy as we know is:
In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia “activity, operation” is an indirectly observed quantity that is often understood as the ability of a physical system to do work on other physical systems. Since work is defined as a force acting through a distance (a length of space), energy is always equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against the basic forces of nature, along a path of a certain length.
The total energy contained in an object is identified with its mass, and energy cannot be created or destroyed. When matter (ordinary material particles) is changed into energy (such as energy of motion, or into radiation), the mass of the system does not change through the transformation process. However, there may be mechanistic limits as to how much of the matter in an object may be changed into other types of energy and thus into work, on other systems. Energy, like mass, is a scalar physical quantity. In the International System of Units (SI), energy is measured in joules, but in many fields other units, such as kilowatt-hours and kilocalories, are customary. All of these units translate to units of work, which is always defined in terms of forces and the distances that the forces act through.
What force????????? The only known experimental force that can act upon objects is the positive or negative attraction or repulsion of charged particles and the magnetic fields they create.
vukcevic says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:29 am
whenever the speed of light appears, there is a direct physical law reference to the electromagnetic processes, there is no other way around it.
Which is irrelevant [and actually wrong] as the red-shift has nothing to do with electromagnetism. It is wrong because the speed of light occurs in many things, e.g. time dilation and relativistic mass, without any EM process being involved.
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:38 am
Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
As far as I am concerned you have no answer at all. You did not show the derivation of the formalae, did not show the formulae, did not show the calculation. Thus have nothing. If you do not show how, I would venture the strong statement that you are just a liar when you say you even got an answer. Prove me wrong.
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 2:12 pm
After all, Red-Shift is a Doppler effect which is caused by a medium. Red-shift is nothing more than an indicator of the electron density in a plasma.
The cosmological redshift [and the gravitational red-shift] are not Doppler effects. And does not depend on any medium.
……
irrelevant nonsense skipped.
The only known experimental force that can act upon objects is the positive or negative attraction or repulsion of charged particles and the magnetic fields they create.
Completely wrong, there are three other [non EM] forces that can act on objects.
DM is revealing it’s secrets according to this presentation
It’s DE that basically wrecks everything as it’s a repulsive force and fits in neither Standard models or any known non-standard models.
I see the Universe’s constituent makeup has a decimal point in their estimations:
Leif says:
‘……..72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter….”
——————
Wow—DIdn’t know the calculations have a decimal point now. Dark Energy @ 72.8%. That is exciting when you consider that 95.44% is ‘unknown’. Der Spiegel has an interesting article on the LHC’s hunt for an understanding of Dirac’s baby: Anti-Matter.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-cover-story-on-the-search-for-antimatter-a-844043.html
‘……………….Then, at the end of last year, the first indication of a new physics appeared to finally have been revealed. The news, at the time, did not come from the Higgs boson hunters at the two giant detectors, Atlas and CMS, who were being celebrated last week. Instead, a smaller team at the LHCb experiment announced the discovery. (The world of CERN is so unusual that a team of 750 scientists from 15 countries can be considered small.)
“It’s the first truly exciting result the accelerator has delivered,” says LHCb physicist Thomas Ruf, his voice filled with pride. He flips through the “Particle Data Booklet,” a small brochure that lists all the kaons, muons, omega, lambda and sigma particles in the particle world — a standard feature on the desk of every particle physicist.
Stronger than Expected
The booklet lists dozens of possible decay processes for which asymmetries between matter and antimatter have since been discovered. But it’s different this time, because the effect is five or even 10 times as stronger as it ought to be. Most importantly, it is occurring in so-called D mesons, particles that contain only one charm quark. Few scientists had even considered this possibility until now.
And now the theoreticians are eagerly embarking on the study of the behavior of charm quarks, which had previously always been neglected. The LHCb physicists are trying to recalibrate their device to make it as sensitive as possible to the decay of D mesons.
Ruf and his colleagues hope to find other surprises in the data from the LHCb collaboration. And then there are the remaining results from last year, which haven’t been fully analyzed yet, and that more than a dozen scientists are currently studying. Will the data confirm the D meson effect? They don’t know yet, because all of the data they receive is distorted — deliberately.
To prevent the scientists from being blinded by their own euphoria while analyzing the data, the results are essentially obfuscated with the help of special software. Only when the analysis is complete and has been determined to be sound will the data be “unblinded,” to use the scientists’ terminology.” Then it will become apparent whether there is evidence to substantiate the scientists’ ideas…………………..’
johnnythelowery says:
July 15, 2012 at 9:18 pm
“……..72.8 percent dark energy, 22.7 percent dark matter, and 4.56 percent baryonic matter….”
Wow—DIdn’t know the calculations have a decimal point now.
The observations are that good. Cosmology has become a high-precision observational science. Some theories have a hard time to catch up. That is OK as science is driven by observations in the first place. As Bob Leighton used to say [Leighton’s Law]: “what does happen, can happen”.
kuhnkat says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:22 pm
You say the magnetic field is FROZEN IN the plasma
No, Vlasov says that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlasov_equation#The_frozen-in_approximation
more: http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~mkd/Handout4.pdf
and more: http://www.scribd.com/doc/78266470/69/Frozen-in-magnetic-%EF%AC%82ux-lines
Red shift is lot to do with electromagnetism, since light is electromagnetic wave of high frequency (lambda f =c), source of which is receding with velocity measurable against the speed of light, or alternatively you could consider it a particle with a mass (massive photon) slowed down by gravitation gradient. Either way relativity comes into it.
Leif Svalgaard,
You are probably gritting your teeth about now. Yes I noticed that I left out what to you is a very important property. You tell me that Plasmas cannot have current due to their excellent conductivity. This simple statement for you ends the discussion. So, let me move that property to earth for an experiment. Down here we have scientists hard at work to produce superconductors. Assuming they develop one that can replace wire I build a generator, transmission facility and motors and other devices to be run. You are telling me that since this system will have very good conductivity there will be no current??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That will be one heck of a joke on those engineers and scientists working on it!! Don’t you think you should tell them???
vukcevic says:
July 16, 2012 at 12:00 am
Red shift is lot to do with electromagnetism, since light is electromagnetic wave of high frequency (lambda f =c), source of which is receding with velocity measurable against the speed of light
That is the case for the Doppler shift, but the sources are not receding from us. Instead space is expanding. The CMB has a red-shift of 1100, which measured ‘against the speed of light’ is 1100 times c. Gravitational waves will also be stretched by the expansion. Nothing to do with electromagnetism.
kuhnkat says:
July 16, 2012 at 1:10 am
You are telling me that since this system will have very good conductivity there will be no current?
I’m telling you that because of the high [nearly infinite] conductivity the current will cease as you draw current from it to run your devices. To sustain the current you need to generate it all the time [have an emf]. You generate the current by moving a conductor across a magnetic field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation : “electricity is generated by the movement of a loop of wire, or disc of copper between the poles of a magnet.”
Ok you say red-shift is not Doppler shift, you can convince me of that by showing me one experiment that was not performed in a medium. Gravitational red-shift is nothing more than the photon’s (an electromagnetic phenomenon) response to a large mass because large masses have large EM fields surrounding them. The Sun’s EM field extends all the way to the heliosphere. How far do you think a galaxies EM field extends? As shown in one of my previous posts, relativity says that Maxwell’s equations govern in a vacuum for EM interactions. So I agree, since the photon is an EM phenomenon and relativity says Maxwell’s equations govern and you say gravity causes it then gravity MUST be a EM phenomenon.
No current is generated when charged particles move in relation to other charges, read your electrical books. This then creates a magnetic field. The magnetic field causes other electrons to spiral, i.e. move which causes further current flow. Maxwell’s laws describes how electrical and magnetic fields behave, the Lorentz Force only describes the force on a charged particle in the presence of those EM fields. It only describes what happens to a charged particle that moves in already existing fields. Don’t take my word for it, look it up in any science book you choose.
Steven, sorry man but you can’t have “no current” followed by “more current” in a statement..
Lief is right you are ignorant.
That’s where I lost interest in anything you might have to say.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 9:54 am
Ok you say red-shift is not Doppler shift, you can convince me of that by showing me one experiment that was not performed in a medium.
Nature does that all the time, just look at any far-away galaxy. I don’t need to convince you. You need to learn something. Learning is not being convinced. Learning is about getting understanding, of which you [sadly] have next to nothing, to wit, this and all your other comments.
Gravitational red-shift is nothing more than the photon’s (an electromagnetic phenomenon) response to a large mass because large masses have large EM fields surrounding them.
First, the cosmological red-shift is not the gravitational red-shift which we can observe in the laboratory here on Earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
Large masses do not have large EM fields surrounding them caused by their mass. As large masses are electrically neutral there is no electric field surrounding them. Most of them have magnetic fields around them, but not just because they are large.
The Sun’s EM field extends all the way to the heliosphere.
If anything, the EM-phenomenon called sunlight presumably extends 4.6 billion light years away from the Sun [by now]. Since the Sun is electrically neutral, there is no electric field extending through space. The Sun’s magnetic field would extend to ‘inifinity’ if in empty space, but the interstellar medium also has a magnetic field [and material pressure], so the heliopause is where those two fields just balance. To first approximation you could say that the Sun’s field does not extend to outside the heliosphere, and the interstellar magnetic field does not extend to inside the heliosphere. The same is the case for the Earth’s magnetic field, it is confined to its magnetosphere and the Sun’s magnetic field is confined to the outside of the magnetosphere. In both cases, the confinement is not perfect as there is interactions between the fields. For example, if the directions are just right, the magnetic fields inside and outside the boundary can reconnect, creating electric currents that when dissipate in a medium [e.g. the ionosphere] can cause light emission, e.g. aurorae.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:03 am
No current is generated when charged particles move in relation to other charges
If positive charge moves one way and negative charge moves the other way, a current is flowing. If both charges move in the same direction, no current is flowing. The rest of your comment is just a misunderstood jumble.
Now, back to science. You claimed:
Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
As far as I am concerned you have no answer at all. You did not show the derivation of the formulae, did not show the formulae, did not show the calculation.
So provide these things.
That was to have a question mark at the end. You are saying that without a magnetic field, no current can exist. You are implying a particle must move in a magnetic field.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/182467/electric-current
Electric current, any movement of electric charge carriers, such as subatomic charged particles (e.g., electrons having negative charge, protons having positive charge), ions (atoms that have lost or gained one or more electrons), or holes (electron deficiencies that may be thought of as positive particles).
Current in gases and liquids generally consists of a flow of positive ions in one direction together with a flow of negative ions in the opposite direction. To treat the overall effect of the current, its direction is usually taken to be that of the positive charge carrier. A current of negative charge moving in the opposite direction is equivalent to a positive charge of the same magnitude moving in the conventional direction and must be included as a contribution to the total current. Current in semiconductors consists of the motion of holes in the conventional direction and electrons in the opposite direction.
This also goes against your theory of magnetic reconnection:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/357334/magnetism
A fundamental property of a magnetic field is that its flux through any closed surface vanishes. (A closed surface is one that completely surrounds a volume.) This is expressed mathematically by div B = 0 and can be understood physically in terms of the field lines representing B. These lines always close on themselves, so that if they enter a certain volume at some point, they must also leave that volume. In this respect, a magnetic field is quite different from an electric field. Electric field lines can begin and end on a charge, but no equivalent magnetic charge has been found in spite of many searches for so-called magnetic monopoles.
Science seems to agree with me:
The most common source of magnetic fields is the electric current loop. It may be an electric current in a circular conductor or the …..motion of an orbiting electron in an atom…. (emphasis added) Associated with both these types of current loops is a magnetic dipole moment, the value of which is iA, the ….product….(emphasis added) of the current and the area of the loop.
We both already know why the neutron was decided it wasn’t a fundamental particle. Because it HAD a magnetic moment, yet was neutral, i.e. current was not flowing. And what de we try to disguise the current that causes the magnetic field? Why with colour. Quarks, charged particles are spinning and moving in relation to one another, an electric current. So I expect space is about as neutral as a neutron since according to you, space is electrically neutral. Yet that neutral atom sure does a good job of keeping the protons from scattering and the electron from crashing into the nucleus.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 2:31 pm
You are saying that without a magnetic field, no current can exist.
No, what I’m saying is slightly different: to create a current you must move a conductor in a magnetic field.
All the rest of your comment is irrelevant cut-n-paste that you evidently do not understand. The spin of elementary particles is not an electric current. The ‘mumbo-jumbo’ [but correct] explanation is ” spin is a consequence of the postulates of QM and the rotational invariance of space. The rotational invariance is usually imposed by postulating that spacetime is Minkowski space (although this isn’t necessary if we’re only interested in the spin; we could consider the non-relativistic spacetime as well). This forces us to consider representations of the covering group of the Poincaré group on Hilbert spaces, and it turns out that it’s natural to identify each irreducible representation with a possible particle species. (“Possible” because not all of them correspond to particles that exist in the real world). Within each irreducible representation, the spin is the same.”
Here is more on spin:
http://electron6.phys.utk.edu/phys250/modules/module%203/spin.htm
“Spin is intrinsic angular momentum associated with elementary particles. It is a purely quantum mechanical phenomenon without any analog in classical physics [i.e. no little current running around]. Spin is not associated with any rotating internal parts of elementary particles; it is intrinsic to the particle itself. An electron has spin, even though it is believed to be a point particle, possessing no internal structure.” Even a photon has spin [1 unit].
You still have not answered :
Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
As far as I am concerned you have no answer at all. You did not show the derivation of the formulae, did not show the formulae, did not show the calculation.
So provide these things. I think that you have not, simply because you cannot. Prove me wrong.
I told you 3 times already Leif, I use the exact same formula as you because those formulas are derived from Maxwell’s equations, as is almost all of relativity.
Here you are contradicting yourself. Parker’s derivation of the equation for the solar wind is not derived from Maxwell’s equations or relativity, but good old Newtonian mechanics and predicts acceleration with distance. You claimed that Parker’s theory does not explain that, but EU does. Now you say that the EU equations are “the exact formulas, so they should predict the same.
If Anthony lets you, you can try to explain the contradiction and to provide the calculation by EU. If you cannot, I suggest you take your nonsense elsewhere.
Lets us see what is taught in the schools:
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node77.html
I have nothing more to say, your ideas run counter to every known science that exists. Enjoy your fantasy world!
Here’s your calculations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
The orbital speed at any position in the orbit can be computed from the distance to the central body at that position, and the specific orbital energy, which is independent of position: the kinetic energy is the total energy minus the potential energy.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node73.html
And as we have seen magnetic fields require electric currents.
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node78.html
This conversation is over, you refuse to accept the very textbook explanations standard cosmology teaches you. There is no sense wasting time on those contradicting their own theories.
I agree, it has no analog in classical physics because classical physics deals with Newtonian physics, not the EM force, which according to relativity only Maxwell’s equations govern the EM force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics
What “classical physics” refers to depends on the context. When discussing special relativity, it refers to the Newtonian physics which preceded relativity, i.e. the branches of physics based on principles developed before the rise of relativity and quantum mechanics. When discussing general relativity, it refers to the result of modifying Newtonian physics to incorporate special relativity. When discussing quantum mechanics, it refers to non-quantum physics, including special relativity, and general relativity.
And if the EU theory explains everything without the need for fudge factors like DM and DE…..how boring is that!!!!! Dark Matter and DE show that 95% of the Universe elludes our understanding and explanation. It’s there and we have not the slightest as to why. That is a far more exciting proposition, aside from the being the correct one, than unified theory of EU where, apparently, it’s all sorted.. So, what is the attraction for the EU proponents??? The SM and QM + Graivity is great (as long as those bastard strings aren’t true!). —- IMHO I love a mystery and they don’t came any bigger than DE
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm
I agree, it has no analog in classical physics because classical physics deals with Newtonian physics, not the EM force, which according to relativity only Maxwell’s equations govern the EM force.
No, according to your own link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics
What “classical physics” refers to depends on the context. … When discussing quantum mechanics, it refers to non-quantum physics, including special relativity, and general relativity.
And particle spin is a quantum mechanical concept.
This conversation is over
Good riddance.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Here’s your calculations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
which you claim are the ‘exact’ same equations as Parker used to predict the solar wind and calculate the solar wind speed and its acceleration with distance. It should be evident that what you quote has nothing to do with Parker’s theory, and noting to do with EU theory. It seems you have fallen on your sword here.
Leif: While we are here….did ‘we’ (you) ever hear back on this iosotope decay pattern of 33 days data from Brookhaven?? Anything going on with this inquiry?? have you heard anything??
‘……….Going back to take another look at the decay data from the Brookhaven lab, the researchers found a recurring pattern of 33 days. It was a bit of a surprise, given that most solar observations show a pattern of about 28 days – the rotation rate of the surface of the sun.
The explanation? The core of the sun – where nuclear reactions produce neutrinos – apparently spins more slowly than the surface we see. “It may seem counter-intuitive, but it looks as if the core rotates more slowly than the rest of the sun,” Sturrock said.
All of the evidence points toward a conclusion that the sun is “communicating” with radioactive isotopes on Earth, said Fischbach.
But there’s one rather large question left unanswered. No one knows how neutrinos could interact with radioactive materials to change their rate of decay………………’
oops that is a quote from Prof. Sturrock of Stanford
That is the mystery. How are separate charges combined to form the very structure we see around us. It would take infinite energy to separate charge from a teaspoon of salt, but in space the charge is already separated, that is the nature of plasma. The real question left unanswered, and believe me the EU is in its infancy, we have only in the past few decades had the equipment to peer into all the frequencies, is how do these charges interact and combine to form you, me, the earth and moon, the sun and the galaxy and the very universe itself? Even I don’t claim to know everything :), contrary to my well, assertive writing. It comes out that way because most as soon as they here the word electricity and space begin to act like there is no science behind it.
That science is contained in everything you read, in almost every equation you use, yet you refuse to put the electric into electromagnetic. I do not ask you to believe me, just believe what your own textbooks tell you, but the hypothesis has laboratory backed experimental evidence that on most occasions has a more logical answer. Inside what you call the EU theory, we only consider it a paradigm. We have only begun to learn, still in our infancy, and can already explain quite a bit of how the universe behaves. We do not ask that you convert, just do not exclude logically backed experimental evidence and refuse funding or publication as is the norm in science today. I can extrapolate and get published by imagining the gap in the CMB is a bubble edge of a parallel dimension and get published, but don’t dare mention the word electricity.
johnnythelowery says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Leif: While we are here….did ‘we’ (you) ever hear back on this iosotope decay pattern of 33 days data from Brookhaven?? Anything going on with this inquiry?? have you heard anything??
Yes, Sturrock gave a seminar at Stanford last week. He has a paper coming out soon. The data is weak, but it is OK to speculate.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm
That is the mystery. How are separate charges combined to form the very structure we see around us.
Not a mystery at all, as ‘separate’ [or ‘opposite’] charges attract each other, either gravitationally or electrically.
It would take infinite energy to separate charge from a teaspoon of salt
Nonsense, just heat the teaspoon of salt to 10,000 degrees and it becomes ionized.
but in space the charge is already separated, that is the nature of plasma.
simply because the stuff is hot. In both cases the matter is electrically neutral.
We have only begun to learn, still in our infancy, and can already explain quite a bit of how the universe behaves
Without being able to calculate anything from EU theory you have no explanation of anything. Just hand waving, which is not understanding.
Steven says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm
How are separate charges combined to form the very structure we see around us.
When the universe was formed it became a plasma because it was very hot. A dense plasma is opaque to electromagnetic radiation, so we can’t look back into the universe at that time. Because of the expansion of space, the temperature was steadily falling. Once the temperature fell below 3000 degrees [which happened when the universe was 377,000 years old], atomic hydrogen is rapidly formed by combination of protons and electrons [conversely, if you heat neutral hydrogen atoms in the laboratory you’ll find that the atoms disassociate [become ionized] when the temperature exceeds 3000 degrees]. Atomic hydrogen does not interact strongly with electromagnetic radiation and is thus transparent, so all the sudden the universe went from being opaque to being transparent. That is: all the plasma disappeared and there was no plasma in the universe for the next several hundred million years, until the first stars had formed and ionized the surrounding hydrogen atoms back into protons and electrons. Even though high-density plasma is opaque, the density of plasma between the stars in the universe is so low [because of the expansion of space] that for all intents and purposes the universe remained transparent [we can see the galaxies]. Computer simulations show how gravity condenses matter into filaments and sheets surrounding huge voids with almost no matter. Such begins the greatest story ever told.
OK.
But if that scenario happened (all of the known universe expanding from one point to a cool plasma below 3000 degree between t=0.0 and t=3.7 x 10^5 years), then all of the mass of the universe must be inside that radius at that point in time.
What velocity are “they” (conventional BB theory proponents) using to assume all of the mass of every galaxy, black hole, brown dwarf, and all interstellar dust and matter we know of now) is far enough apart to be individual atoms (protons and neutrons and electrons) yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
Projecting that velocity from t=3.7 x10^5 years to now, does it match the current assumed radius to the edge of the known universe?
RACookPE1978 says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:16 pm
What velocity are “they” (conventional BB theory proponents) using to assume all of the mass of every galaxy, black hole, brown dwarf, and all interstellar dust and matter we know of now) is far enough apart to be individual atoms (protons and neutrons and electrons) yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
Even you can easily determine that. The temperature of the CMB is now 3 degrees, when it was 3000 degrees, the universe was 1000 [=3000/3] times denser. The density now between the stars is lower than in the best vacuum we can make in the laboratory. Even a density 1000 times larger is still lower than the best vacuum, so no problems there.
RACookPE1978 says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:16 pm
yet still close enough together to become electrically neutral?
I should expand on that. The electric attraction is incredibly strong between protons and electrons so that they can easily find each other. There are no neutrons left. A neutron only lives for about 1000 seconds.
You can see how we compute the primordial Helium content [and what effect the short life of neutrons has on that] here: http://www.leif.org/research/Helium.pdf
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 16, 2012 at 10:24 pm
the universe was 1000 [=3000/3] times denser.
Haste is waste. The linear extent was a 1000 times smaller, so the density is 1000^3 = a billion times higher, on par with the best vacuum etc…
johnnythelowery says:
July 16, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Leif: While we are here….did ‘we’ (you) ever hear back on this iosotope decay pattern of 33 days data from Brookhaven?? Anything going on with this inquiry?? have you heard anything??
Yes, Sturrock gave a seminar at Stanford last week. He has a paper coming out soon. The data is weak, but it is OK to speculate.
———————————————
Wow. Really? Thought i’d go into the bin along with that super-luminous Alpine stuff. The fact that Sturrock is sticking to his guns is interesting. Look forward to the paper and then the thread here . Of course, ……..it’s a big nod to EU. Just kidding.
Did you go to the presentation?? What do you think of this observation?? Neutrino to the fore?? as entanglement is too weak over those distances as you explained last time this came up.
johnnythelowery says:
July 17, 2012 at 9:06 am
Did you go to the presentation??
Yes, Peter is a good friend of mine and I always go to his talks.
What do you think of this observation??
I’m a true skeptic 🙂 but as always, I have an open mind and will not dismiss speculation when it is labeled as such.
Neutrino to the fore??
Here is the abstract of his paper:
This article presents a comparative analysis of solar activity data, Mt Wilson diameter data, Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data, and nuclear decay data acquired at the Lomonosov Moscow State University (LMSU). We propose that salient periodicities in all of these datasets may be attributed to r-mode oscillations. Periodicities in the solar activity data and in Super-Kamiokande solar neutrino data may be attributed to r-mode oscillations in the known tachocline, with normalized radius in the range 0.66 to 0.74, where the sidereal rotation rate is in the range 13.7 to 14.6 per year. We propose that periodicities in the Mt Wilson and LMSU data may be attributed to similar r-mode oscillations where the sidereal rotation rate is approximately 12.0 per year, which we attribute to a hypothetical “inner” tachocline separating a slowly rotating core from the radiative zone. We also discuss the possible role of the RSFP (Resonant Spin Flavor Precession) process, which leads to estimates of the neutrino magnetic moment and of the magnetic field strength in or near the solar core.
V. interesting. Was there a Q&A. Did it go down well?? I’m hoping you’ll post a thread on it here @ WUWT when the time is right. Hopefully there are some particle physicists here but i predict the EU guys will go beserk with references to ‘slowly (slower) rotating core’ etc.
I’m sure Stanford doesn’t record these things and post online. Thanks for responding.
johnnythelowery says:
July 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Did it go down well??
I don’t think anybody was convinced, but now and them it is good to speculate and Peter is well-respected.
I predict the EU guys will go beserk with references to ‘slowly (slower) rotating core’ etc.
Probably not, as Sturrock relies on a high-temperature solar interior producing neutrinos, while EU postulates that the Sun is cold on the inside and that the neutrinos are produced at the surface [go figure]. But it is a waste of time to discuss with those people as every attempt to educate them falls on barren ground.
Your pattern of isotope decay is caused by the same force that causes what you tern Neutron stars. Just not in the way you like to explain them. Stars spinning at over 50,000 rpm, come on guys. It is an oscillation in the galactic circuits. That is the frequency of the oscillation for the sun, 28 to 33 days depending on accuracy, and current varies, and milliseconds for the neutron star.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_oscillator
more precisely it is a Relaxation oscillator.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relaxation_oscillator
Steven says:
July 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Your pattern of isotope decay is caused by the same force that causes what you term Neutron stars.
Gravity is the ultimate force that cause neutron stars. When a star has exhausted its fuel by fusion, there is no longer the usual outward pressure from the fusion process and gravity makes the star contract until the Pauli Exclusion Principle kicks in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star :
“A neutron star is a type of stellar remnant that can result from the gravitational collapse of a massive star during a Type II, Type Ib or Type Ic supernova event. Such stars are composed almost entirely of neutrons, which are subatomic particles without electrical charge and with slightly larger mass than protons. Neutron stars are very hot and are supported against further collapse by quantum degeneracy pressure due to the Pauli exclusion principle. This principle states that no two neutrons (or any other fermionic particles) can occupy the same place and quantum state simultaneously.”
It is an oscillation in the galactic circuits
Total nonsense [even more than your usual nonsense]. The rotation period is determined by several processes, most importantly by the gravitational contraction of the material and the conservation of angular momentum. The magnetic field is similarly increased by the contraction, and being frozen into the stellar wind helps slow down the rotation somewhat.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717183418.htm
Getting closer, even NASA is catching on finally.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Getting closer, even NASA is catching on finally.
More nonsense to say so; your gullibility is legendary. You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents. This has been known for decades [see my explanation from 1973 http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf ]. The question is where the currents come from. Direct measurements show that the currents are caused by plasma moving across the Earth’s magnetic field or from differently directed magnetic fields being pressed together [called reconnection]. That is what creates the currents.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm
You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents.
In the low gravity environments found near the earth. In strong gravity environment [e.g a collapsing star], gravity wins and dominate.
We will all know soon wont we, but they didn’t wonder what caused a protons magnetic moment or an electrons, the only reason they went looking for the magnetic moment of the neutron was because neutral was supposed to mean no charge, not just a balancing of charge. lo and behold, quarks, electrified charged particles was the cause. It was these charged particles they were looking for, not another magnetic moment of a smaller particle. Although you can be sure the quark is made up of even smaller charged particles that keep the quarks from crashing together or flying apart.
The currents come from the movement of one charged particle in relation to another, this creates magnetic fields that confine the current into filaments. The current supplying the earth arises from the sun, you just refuse to accept that these twisting filaments are electric current confined by the magnetic fields they generate.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/
Ropes, great science term, they are called Birkeland Currents in plasma physics.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 18, 2012 at 7:57 pm
You don’t seem to know that almost any energetic phenomenon is caused by electric currents.
In the low gravity environments found near the earth. In strong gravity environment [e.g a collapsing star], gravity wins and dominate.
Really? I see electromagnetic radiation emitted from every source, including ones you like to call Black Holes. Funny how your gravity can’t even hold in the EM radiation and plasma jets emitted from the center of galaxies.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
We will all know soon wont we
I don’t think you will ever learn
The currents come from the movement of one charged particle in relation to another
As the plasma is electrically neutral, there is no such movement. A magnetic field is needed to separate charges so a current can flow.
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun,
The current around the earth is caused by the neutral solar plasma being deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. Negative charges one way and positive charges the other way, thus creating charge separation and an electric field which sustains a current.
they are called Birkeland Currents in plasma physics
No, not in real plasma physics [e.g. in the laboratory or in fusion machines], only in the pseudo-science you think is ‘plasma physics’. Birkeland currents [as I show in http://www.leif.org/research/Geomagnetic-Response-to-Solar-Wind.pdf Figure 15] flow because the mobility of charges is high along the magnetic field and low across the field.
Ropes, great science term
As your link explains, those are “magnetic ropes”, that when meeting the Earth’s magnetic field can reconnect and create electric currents. You have this whole thing precisely backwards and don’t even see that when citing sources that show you are mistaken. This is what I call ‘willful’ ignorance.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:18 pm
I see electromagnetic radiation emitted from every source, including ones you like to call Black Holes. Funny how your gravity can’t even hold in the EM radiation and plasma jets emitted from the center of galaxies.
Gravity makes matter collapse and in the process heats the matter. Any hot matter emits electromagnetic radiation. As simple as that. And if gravity is strong enough [e.g. in black holes] it does ‘hold in’ the radiation.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun
Your own source http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ says about what happens when a magnetic rope hits the Earth at the magnetopause:
“It is where the solar wind first feels the effects of Earth’s magnetic field. When a knot of magnetism within the solar wind hits the bow shock–“Bang!” he says. “We get an explosion.”
The explosion is due to the electric currents generated by the magnetized,but neutral solar plasma interacts with the magnetic Earth. Is this so hard to understand. when explained and demonstrated and backed up by spacecraft data?
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:38 am
I get the same answer as you … Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
I think you have no answer. In case you have give the derivation of the equation here and calculate the acceleration of the wind with distance. Parkers does that just fine using only gravity and ordinary hydrodynamics. Show us here how you calculate ‘exactly’ the same things from EU theory. Put up or shut up.
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 8:15 pm
The current supplying the earth arises from the sun
Your own source http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis/ says about what happens when a magnetic rope hits the Earth at the magnetopause.
“The satellites have found evidence for magnetic ropes connecting Earth’s upper atmosphere directly to the Sun,” says Dave Sibeck
That this is the case was discovered by myself and Sergei Mansurov in the late 1960s. It is known as the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect: http://www.ann-geophys.net/30/817/2012/angeo-30-817-2012.pdf
Yah well, you are entitled to your beliefs, but NASA says it all:
“We need models to help predict hazardous events in the belts and right now we are aren’t very good at that.”
One would think with all these correct theories you have that you could get a few things right, but the track record speaks for itself about the correctness of those theories.
No, it was predicted by Kristian Birkeland more than 100 years ago, which is why in plasma science they are called Birkeland Currents.
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Birkeland_Kristian.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristian_Birkeland
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kristian_Birkeland.html
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:42 pm
One would think with all these correct theories you have that you could get a few things right, but the track record speaks for itself about the correctness of those theories.
The track record is very good. Given solar wind data we can calculate very precisely what the effect on the Earth is, e.g. http://www.leif.org/research/IAGA2008LS-final.pdf
Steven says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:51 pm
No, it was predicted by Kristian Birkeland more than 100 years ago, which is why in plasma science they are called Birkeland Currents.
‘Plasma science’ as you understand it is pseudo-science. In magnetospheric science, the field-aligned currents are called Birkeland currents. But Birkeland was totally wrong about their nature and the physics. He had an ongoing fight with Stoermer whether the ‘corpuscle rays’ [as he called them] were positive or negative rays [e.g http://www.leif.org/EOS/Birkeland-1919.pdf ] Birkeland claimed they were negative while Stoermer claimed they were positive. As an example of how far off the rail Birkeland was, consider that he in the paper I just mentioned claimed “that the sun always on an average sends out more energy as corpuscular rays than as heat and light radiation”. Here he is off by a factor millions. Lindemann cut through the nonsense [ http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemans-1919.pdf ] by proving that the ‘rays’ were neither, but that the solar wind [the ‘corpuscular rays’] was ionized, but electrically neutral with both charges equally present.
Birkeland claimed they were negative while Stoermer claimed they were positive
http://www.leif.org/EOS/Lindemann-1919.pdf
Read what NASA has to say:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm
Before we can discuss magnetism in a sensible manner, you first must understand what an Electromagnetic field is.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183201/electromagnetic-field
Steven says:
July 19, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Read what NASA has to say
Jeez, this is not ‘NASA’ who says so. But Alfven and company writing a chapter in Special Publication 345 describing their 40+year old theory which is not considered valid today, now that we direct measurements in space. Nevertheless, not everything is invalid, in particular their equation 15.4.1 that says that the voltage, V, is generated by motion, v, in a magnetic field, B. No magnetic field, no current.
Steven says:
July 19, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Before we can discuss magnetism in a sensible manner, you first must understand what an Electromagnetic field is
“electromagnetic field, a property of space caused by the motion of an electric charge”
If there are two charges of opposite sign, as in a neutral plasma, the two fields cancel out and there is no net electromagnetic field.
“An electric field can be produced also by a changing magnetic field”
Now we are talking. And as Alfven pointed out in SP-345, the electric field is generated by motion, v, in a magnetic field, B. No magnetic field, no current.
As usual, you just regurgitate undigested, and not-understood stuff. Better pay attention to this:
Steven says:
July 15, 2012 at 11:38 am
I get the same answer as you … Why would you ever think I would get a different answer?
I think you have no answer. In case you have, give the derivation of the equation here and calculate the acceleration of the solar wind with distance. Parkers does that just fine using only gravity and ordinary hydrodynamics. Show us here how you calculate ‘exactly’ the same things from EU theory. Put up or shut up.
Leif Svalgaard says:
July 19, 2012 at 10:13 pm
………………..
I think you two need a break, but before then a question for Dr.S.
Any papers that might reflect on impact (if any) of polar ‘ring currents’ on the Arctic’s atmospheric pressure ?
vukcevic says:
July 20, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Any papers that might reflect on impact (if any) of polar ‘ring currents’ on the Arctic’s atmospheric pressure ?
There is some confusion here: The ‘ring current’ is in the equatorial plans several earth radii above the surface. There are what is called ‘electrojets’ at the equator and along the polar circles at latitude ~65 degrees. These extend only over a limited range of longitude [some 100 degrees], so are not ‘ring currents’. There is [I think, but most people disagree] a ring current around each geomagnetic pole at about 1000 km distance. This current reverses direction whenever the polarity of the IMF sweeping past the Earth changes sign [the Svalgaard-Mansurov effect].
So, the short answer is: “no”.
You are practicing a pseudo theory:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/183201/electromagnetic-field
“A stationary charge will produce only an electric field in the surrounding space. If the charge is moving, a magnetic field is also produced.”
Now, once that magnetic field is produced by the moving electric charges , i.e. current, the magnetic field will cause other charged particles to spiral, i.e. move, and produce further charge.
“An electric field can be produced also by a changing magnetic field. The mutual interaction of electric and magnetic fields produces an electromagnetic field, which is considered as having its own existence in space apart from the charges or currents (a stream of moving charges) with which it may be related.”
Fact: the ONLY way you get magnetic fields is by moving electric charges. Current may arise either from moving electric charges, or from charges caused to spiral (moving charges) because of the magnetic field. The magnetic field causes them to spiral, this causes them to move, all moving charges are current. But charges can move without a magnetic field.
Practice your pseudo theories based on imagination not experiments. But you will always continue to be surprised by every new discovery. Just like today you claim the CMB supports theory, yet your theory predicted a value whole orders of magnitude off, and you have the gall to claim it supports your theory. Pseudo science.
OK, that’s it for me. Thanks to Steven’s over the top arguments, once again this discussion has veered off topic and quite frankly I’m getting tired of moderating it. So I’m closing comments for a second thread that Steven has polluted with his secular view of the universe. Steven a word of advice: don’t try extending this discussion into another thread, all of your comments will be deleted if you try to do that. Be as upset as you wish, but have a nice weekend.
Steven says:
July 20, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Fact: the ONLY way you get magnetic fields is by moving electric
charges.
No, only if the charges move in different directions. Two opposite
charges moving in the same direction produce no magnetic field [and no
current, for that matter]
But you will always continue to be surprised by every new discovery.
On the contrary, most of what you tout as new discovery is either old
hat [and no longer believed by anybody] or just confirmation of things
we surmised decades ago.
Just like today you claim the CMB supports theory, yet your theory
predicted a value whole orders of magnitude off, and you have the gall
to claim it supports your theory.
These are not my theories, but the compelling combined thought
and realization of thousands of researchers across the world,
conducting experiments in the laboratory and in space. Modern cosmology is Mankind’s greatest achievement.