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…
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 @ur momisugly 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.