Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter
nasa.gov
nasa.gov
Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical? Could the rules at such scales necessitate a new form of physics that we have yet to derive because of the difficulty of observation?
I ask this because "dark matter" and "dark energy" always make me think of past primitive attempts to align unexpected data to existing models of understanding. Is it possible that they are just "echoes" or "shadows" of concepts that exceed the very nature of "matter" and "energy"?
Isn't special relativity complex and counter-intuitive enough?
Who knows, there may be yet another theory that explains things on a larger scale even better than our current understanding. This may also increase or change our understanding of what happens at the smallest scales. Laws of physics trend towards unification, a single model to explain all scales at once.
Growing up and bumping your head, as a toddler, into the kitchen table, you learn about a Universe that follows newtonian physics, euclidean geometry, and boolean logic. But then you look at vastly different scales and you learn that all these are human-scale approximations. The universe is post-newtonian and non-euclidean; and deep in the science of complexity boolean models are challenged by fuzzy logic.
The newtonian/euclidean/boolean model we carry in our heads is just our little insular view of the universe.
Turns out: yes. If you remove those wrong assumptions, you end up with a classic logical model that makes sense in very aspect. QM is just to raw for explaining the quantum world.
Things seen as fundamental particles that are huge, huge structures. Even to look only at energy and ignore form and geometry (by definition), becomes absurd with deeper understanding.
"If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn?"
Really? You couldn't be bothered to sit down with an organic chemistry textbook and discover that QM is the basis for our entire understanding of how atoms form chemical bonds? You've never heard of sp3 hybridisation? E.g. Paula Bruice's book "Organic Chemistry" starts with QM as the most fundamental piece and builds everything from that. Read it.
QM is a theory. There are facts and theories and they should not be confused. Who we think the universe is governed is based on theories that are derived from facts. But for nearly all facts, you can find different explanations. It is not that the BSM-SG theory will not provide you with equations that are similar to QM equations, but then they differ in the interpretation for example.
Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like.
Then, you have many different theories in condensed matter physics, there are models that have no free electrons at all, and they work for their field also extremely well.
i know the spdf hybridisation model, had it @university, still it's a theory not a fact.
So I looked at all those pictures in the viXra paper, and there is not a single chemical bond or molecule anywhere. Care to explain?
I don't expect you to understand, took me month before it clicked and started to make sense. In fact, at some point I had to take a week off because I was so into the theory, I could not think about my dayjob ;)
Currently the main book is the only way to understand the theory more deeply, but one of our projects is, to do a video series explaining the model in a simple way. As a scientists, you will need the book until somebody writes a comprehensive one as well.
http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...
The papers helped me to get into the theory, but real deep understanding is not possible from them.
http://vixra.org/pdf/1107.0031v1.pdf
What you see in the atlas are the proton and their geometric structure as they grow. These are not electrons ! There are some electrons drawn in on the H atom to show some of the different energy states.
You seem to be acquainted in physics, so, whats your explanation for our well tuned universe. The number of basic constants in the standard model is so high and simulations have shown, that small changes cause an unstable universe. In the BSM-SG model, all those constants and relations are derived. In fact, after some month you understand this: the fundamental growth principle and the geometric configuration nearly always lead to stable atomic structures and galaxies as we know them.
(There are some open questions and there is the possibility that when a matter - antimatter galaxies collide, some unstable galaxy could result. Maybe ill-formed galaxies are an result of such mergers).
Anyway, if somebody gives me a theory that is self stabilizing, derives all constants with very high rescission, fits so well to observed data and uses only 3 dimensional euclidean space. 1 fundamental force and 2 fundamental particles. Sorry, this is just the better theory.
Many people are not firm with logic and only know mathematical logic. Every logic is based on different fundamental assumptions, this is something you have to believe in for a logic to have a truth value for you. Classical logic is simply stricter then mathematical logic and has therefor a higher truth value.
In classical logic this you can't do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q43sqytcdLE
What hybridization would you expect water to have? You're wrong. It's not.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/h2o_orbitals.gif
But our current qm are really bad at predicting bond angles. Vsepr is basically a geometric argument, and most of our understanding of bond angles is strictly emperical.
But (as I just noted in some detail in a different comment here) the "Lambda-CDM" model of a universe evolving in the presence of a cosmological constant and cold dark matter has proven to be quite remarkably consistent under a wide variety of very different observational tests. Everything from supernova data to the cosmic microwave background to large-scale cosmological structure/cluster formation is not just in agreement with the general outline of that model but even gives consistent (and increasingly precise) values for the parameters of the model. (They all lead to pretty much the same value for the percentage of dark matter in the universe, for example. Here's a typical graph from 2003 that I found from a Google image search: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept09/Einasto/Figures/f... The different-colored ovals near the middle-left represent entirely different observational data.)
So I would love to learn someday that all these weird phenomena are manifestations of some deeper, more elegant truth. (I've done some limited research vaguely connected to the area myself, though that was long ago and my current focus is much less directly relevant to this topic.) But whatever that deeper truth turns out to be, we can have a whole lot of confidence that it will manifest in a way that behaves an awful lot like the dark matter and dark energy models that are being studied today.
Whilst I don't claim to have an answer to this question, I still wouldn't call it "odd".
We know of four fundamental forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational) and we know that some particles are unaffected by some of these; e.g. leptons don't feel the strong force and neutrinos don't feel the electromagnetic force.
I would say the odd part is our assumption that matter should be visible (AKA electromagnetically interacting).
(Note: I'm only talking about dark matter here; dark energy is odd ;) )
IANAP, but it seems pretty consistent with the brane element of M-theory to me.
If you have a bunch of 3-dimensional branes sitting next to each other in a hyperdimensional bulk, and gravity is the only force which can pass between them, then of course you're going to end up with what appears to be invisible matter. It's the aggregate mass that has clumped together in the respective 3D branes, as close as is possible to the adjacent branes.
E.g. dropping one dimension, stack some glass sheets and magnets, with the two interleaved. The magnets on one level will be affected by the fields on other levels, but any 2D flatlanders on any given level will be unable to actually see those other magnets. It will be as if some ghostly "dark magnets" are passing right through their own.
So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.
Vortex theory was very cool, but not how the world worked.
But supposing you're right, so what? Unless you'd prefer a more understandable but inaccurate model, there's still no better alternative to dark matter or dark energy.
However, even if a model doesn't work all the time, it doesn't mean it is useless for prediction. Newtons laws is still in use, for example.
In both cases you cannot know that no better predictive models exists (and hence if your truth is absolute), even if you experimental error is zero (which is essentially impossible in most sciences unless you grossly overfit), since there may be unobserved phenomena as well.
I can't remember where I read it but someone made the point that no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.
humans couldn't so far teach mouse a human language. That doesn't mean that mouse doesn't have something like several thousands or tens of thousands of basic sounds and combinations of them into meaningful (for mouse) sequences. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the...
After all as a mouse says to another mouse - "no matter how hard you try you can never teach a human to understand mouse language".
The same is through the history of physics/mathematics. It takes a change in fundamental point of view. The notion of derivative took decades of work to develop by geniuses of that time. Imagine how physics/mathematics looked without it.
When i look at strings theory of today i see epicycles, a very intricate and complex system of epicycles in 11 dimensions :) We need a genius like Newton or Einstein to again see and tell us what is behind that apparent complexity.
Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics.
we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is?
Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain.
This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i know in Chinese, and the task of learning a 1000 Chinese hieroglyphs scares the hell out of me:
https://www.thedodo.com/worlds-smartest-dog-chaser-752002926...
>Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics.
why would it be so? So far the physics has been pretty simple (any abnormal complexity has been usually an indication of our lack of understanding and has been successfully cleared with time) , and even several orders of magnitude complexity increase will fit into our brain.
Edit: to the comment below on 10% - there is a difference between 10% capacity and 10% neurons. The fact that most of our brain is physiologically participating while producing that little capacity most of the time in most of the people is exactly the low efficiency i was talking about.
This myth needs to die in a fire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_the_brain_myth
Okay; but that dog can't have a conversation. It doesn't know what they mean, it just knows that follows a certain stimulus. It's like saying I understand cloud language, because I can tell when it's going to rain after looking at the sky.
And even if that dog "understands" a thousand words, and you're scared of learning a thousand Chinese characters, you still have the capacity for learning Chinese. Or French. Or Spanish, or Esperanto, or Russian, or Thai. You could spend a year learning Russian, and we could have this conversation in that language; I will never be able to explain this conversation to a dog, in any language.
dogs do have conversations. And other animals too. Check the link on the prairie dogs for example.
>I will never be able to explain this conversation to a dog, in any language.
it is the deficiency of human-to-dog communication, not the dog's lack of mental capacity to handle the complexity of conversation.
No. So the dog has its limits, as we have ours. Where the limits are is certainly up for debate, but hard to believe there is no limit.
And still no. Phrase it however you like, it's still wrong. You are not using just 10% of your brain in any manner or means, there is not some great untapped potential waiting to be turned on, your brain is not low efficiency.
Or this: http://rifters.com/real/2009/01/iterating-towards-bethlehem....
Less than a million neurons and Portia's interpreting complex visual scenes and making detailed attack plans.
While "we only use 10% of our brains" is clearly bollocks, the implication that our brains may not be particularly efficient for our level of intelligence doesn't seem too unlikely given the way evolution works - our brain's a crudely scaled-up pile of accidental hacks guided by endless local maxima it can't readily escape from, it'd be very surprising if you couldn't improve on it.
You might draw parallels with modern computers. All these transistors to play with, but we're certainly not using them as well as we could - we're limited by the software we want to run and know how to write using our existing tools.
But we augment our capacities with tools, something mice don't do.
But mice don't say that. They can't. jahnu's statement wasn't a parable.
check the various articles on animal language decoding. Mice and other animals do say that or similar complexity things.
>They can't.
That just an empty statement of belief unsubstantiated by facts. Again check the articles.
In general, the "only humans have language" is simply the religious "only humans have soul" dogma in disguise.
> Mice and other animals do say that
Okay, find me a link that says mice complain about humans not learning their language.
You aren't stating the solution, you are stating the problem.
You didn't get the point. If all of humanity had limited capabilities to speak and express. Say we could all utter only 3 kinds of sounds namely x,y,z- due to that sheer limitation our language and written systems have to be expressed in permutations and combinations of x, y, z.
That sort of stuff works only for simple things. The moment you start venturing into any complexity, trying to express those concepts in only 3 ways will lead to verbosity and interplay that will blow up beyond practical ability to grasp, given limited resources to interpret them.
And take note if the animal has no means of recording information somewhere and check over time, keeping that level of verbosity in one's brain and workout complex physics is just out of question.
We don't understand QM but we can still use the equations to make predictions..
You're suggesting that we can't create better equations which explain more the universe? That's quite a bit early to say that.. I'm more worried about our possibility of creating experiments which can be used then to select which equation is the right one.
(Unless you can improve upon those numbers by a good 40 or 50 orders of magnitude, please don't quibble in the replies. I am aware it's not a "grid" or something, but that is the approximate resolution.)
Our best theories of the universe will have to work at that level, or even potentially below it in the case of string theory. A full theory of the universe ought to be able to describe how everything works down there. However, all the phenomena we care about and have concrete data about are literally 40 orders of magnitude bigger, at a minimum, in spatial and temporal extent.
We have proposals for how the simplest elements of the universe work. Heck, for all we know one of them may even be right. But proving that is extraordinarily difficult because of this huge order-of-magnitude gap. You'd love to be able to just plug in the theory, set yourself up a universe, and start computing, but the incredible gulf of magnitudes makes that essentially impossible. And the theories are sufficiently complicated that attempts to approximate break down in various rather distressing ways.
Even if the Great Simulator simply handed us the equations that our universe is based on, could we verify that claim?
Honestly, my guess is that with enough effort, yes... but even with the answer it could well be extraordinarily difficult. Without the answer it's even harder.
There's more to that than simply wanting it to be so, no matter how much information we can pass on to future generations.
Maybe because a mouse is not even aware of "French". At least, humans are aware of the universe, they may not understand it completely but they are aware of it.
There are things the SM doesn't account for yet, such as dark energy, dark matter, and gravity. That doesn't mean it's beyond human understanding, just that there's more to the universe we haven't discovered yet.
In the worst case, those things will have interesting but not surprising answers. Slight modifications to the SM to account for some new particle types, etc.
In the best case, they turn out to be something completely unexpected and the SM turns out to be the equivalent of Newtonian theory. Perfectly good and accurate theories about the nature of the universe that are just a subset of a wider physics model, like how Newtonian theory exists within the Standard Model.
I suspect that its what we don't understand about quantum mechanics what finally will explain the macro observations that we don't understand.
After all, macro observations have to derive from the fundamentals and it seems that the fundamentals are in the quantum realm.
Perhaps with the super large, everything seems to be more static than we'd like it to be. To get a good sense of the systems, we need to let it happen for longer than we have thus far. Dark Matter is an example. We had to watch the stars to figure out they were not spinning at the right rates, and that took a long time to be certain of.
There is a balance here though. With QM it was just a few things, with astro, it is a universe of things and that takes a lot more 'eyes' to be certain of stuff.
I leave out black holes and the interface of QM and GR, because that is a hell of a lot of stuff happening really fast at really small sizes. Granted, it's the interesting stuff, but I feel we have to get real experiments going first before it is prudent to look at. That means some really big telescopes looking for really tiny variations for a really long time. Something funding bodies are not able to justify as of yet.
It seems that all question I and any non-specialist can ask are stupid and irrelevant, but it's still so exciting to think of all the possibilities.
Disclaimer: not physicist.
[1] http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.htm...
When looked at from the perspective of Gravitational lensing[A phenomenon that bends light] there is some kind of aether 2.0 with a mass that causes the gravitational lensing effect.
Personally I think this is the wrong approach to work with this. We know that a cause c1, was the result of phenomenon p1. We are assuming another cause c2, which is very similar to c1 MUST also be happening due to p1.
It might very well be there is a phenomenon p2 responsible for c2.
We seem to be trying to state cause(dark matter) in terms of its side effect(phenomenon similar to gravitational lensing) without understanding what it actually is.
The notion is that a massive object like the Earth would act something like a lens, gravitationally. That isn't usually apparent, because most types of matter and energy would simply be absorbed when they hit the Earth. But dark matter (according to our best guesses today) can pass straight through the Earth just like light through a transparent object. So if there really are "streams" of dark matter all moving the same direction passing through us, they would act analogously to light rays through an ordinary lens. (And since there could be multiple streams going different directions, it could wind up looking like several light sources shining through that glass of water, with these "hairs" or focal points extending out in several directions.)
The two questions that come to my mind after reading this brief article are, 1) does the same thing happen with, say, solar neutrinos? (Maybe they're just too fast for the effect to be meaningful?) And 2) if they're going to talk about how much more Jupiter does this focusing than the Earth does, is there a reason they didn't go all the way and talk about potentially even stronger "hairs" created by the Sun itself? (Maybe those wind up focusing inside the star?)
Those are mostly neutrino detectors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector
I really don't see why!
"He now seated me near the machine, so that it was on my right, and turned a switch somewhere below the crowning cluster of glass bulbs.
[...]
I felt the huge animate things brushing past me and occasionally walking or drifting through my supposedly solid body [...] Suddenly I myself became possessed of a kind of augmented sight.[...] Indescribable shapes both alive and otherwise were mixed in disgusting disarray, and close to every known thing were whole worlds of alien, unknown entities. It likewise seemed that all the known things entered into the composition of other unknown things and vice versa. Foremost among the living objects were inky, jellyfish monstrosities which flabbily quivered in harmony with the vibrations from the machine. They were present in loathsome profusion, and I saw to my horror that they overlapped; that they were semi-fluid and capable of passing through one another and through what we know as solids."
- H.P. Lovecraft, From Beyond
IF the observed expansion of the universe is indeed due to dark matter as we think of it, and
IF such dark matter exist as streams, and
IF such streams mix with ordinary galaxies, and
IF the solar system is passing through such a stream
THEN Earth MAY have dark matter filaments in its vicinity.
IF we locate such a filament and send a probe, we might be able to learn about dark matter directly.
Fingers crossed. That would be an amazing discovery.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evid...
The accelerating expansion of the universe is thought to be caused by dark energy, not dark matter.
I follow the BSM-SG model in which dark matter/dark energy is absolutely clear what it is and how it functions. The illustration is even a bit similar to the BSM-SG model, if you see it as the CL dimensions. Larger astronomical bodies have their own CL space, which means they carry a bubble with them those geometry is dependent on the body itself. This is why the photons get into a gravitational pull on heavy bodies, time goes differently, ...
That's not an impossible task, but it's an awfully high bar: the widely accepted "Lambda-CDM" model (a specific Big Bang scenario involving both dark energy and cold dark matter) and its parameters have proven to be amazingly consistent under a whole bunch of very different observational tests. The odds that it has passed all of those tests so very consistently purely by dumb luck, while the universe actually follows some entirely incompatible set of rules and history, seem vanishingly small.
Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings:
If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified.
Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.
A statement can be logically deductive, and contain no arithmetic errors; yet be based on propositions which do not have true interpretations in this universe.
Their dead comment:
You are mixing up dark matter and dark energy. The main effect of dark matter
is not universal expansion, it is from both influences of gravity on galaxies
and theory.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidenceThat means, through the wonders of experimental physics, sometime in the next 10, 20, 50 years we will find out if the idea sinks or swims.
I wish the idea the best of luck, as we do need to figure out this issue once and for all.
The current explanations just seem ridiculous.
If you google around for dark matter, you'll find sources, including nasa.gov saying "direct proof" of dark matter has been found already. This was back in 2006.
Theoretical physicists: disprove MOND, TeVeS, Mass in other dimensions, Scale relativity, or better yet, get better data before throwing around theoretical speculation with such confidence?
I assume the tendency for the general public to give higher consideration to "other explanations," relative to professional physicists who seem to lean heavily towards the "matter" hypothesis, is lack of expertise in the current state of research. If you don't have a lot of good evidence one way or the other, all options seem about equally likely, so why take WIMPs more seriously than MOND or other hypotheses? Not that considering those alternatives is silly, but I think this might explain why this question keeps coming up even though the physics community seems pretty focused on the dark-matter-as-matter hypothesis.
Though whatever the answer should turn out to be, it will certainly be an interesting development.
The article even fails to mention electromagnetism, which together with gravity causes matter to collapse on itself, causing black holes, which is the gravitational core of every galaxy.
Electromaginetic fields has also been dictating the galaxy cluster structures (aka "mega structures" that has emerged since the hypothesed event we commonly refer to as the big bang).
http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/how-the-universe-work...
http://www.setterfield.org/Astronomy/Galaxy_Cores.html#elect...
But i get it. Thinking outside of the box is frowned upon around here. Lets all be fanboys, and fuck yea downvote me some more.
That being said, it must be stated first, and bluntly, that we don't think black holes exist. If not even light can get out, how is it the cores of galaxies are shooting out massive amounts of x-rays and material?
Can we please try to keep our delicate egos out of the discussion? If I wanted to see people gripe bitterly about their comments being downvoted, I'd go to reddit.