Dark matter and Dark energy

[Belz...]

Sir, I think the better question is that if a person is given to logic and reason and the rational mind and has plenty of basic data.... 'How can you not know these things?"

DHamilton

Please don't dodge the question. Considering that what you say seems to go against mainstream science, how is it that YOU know these things ?

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't know, but it certainly makes me look better.

 

[shadron]

Yep we are awash in a sea of neutrinos.

And the weak force is left handed, I think that is just as strange.

The ossicilation of neutrinos is probably not too wierd.

Perhaps not as awash as we could be.

When a star is in its final fusion stage, fusing oxygen into iron, I'm told that some kind of nuclear reaction occurs in it's last gasp. That reaction creates a huge number of neutrinos at the same time as the gravity starts to squeeze the star's cooling core, and occurs only minutes before the final collapse. The neutrinos immediately escape at light speed, taking with them a large amount of the energy of the core, making the collapse of the core that much faster; in fact, causing the core to collapse away from the surrounding layers. When the core has collapsed as small as it can go (being pure neutronium), it suddenly stops, and the layers above collide with it and rebound, causing the exploding shell. In the process, the neutron star may be left behind, or if massive enough, a black hole.

Some years ago physicists built several neutrino detectors consisting of millions of gallons of water in very deep, radioactively quiet mines (one in Japan; I don't know about others), hoping to catch enough of them to discern this neutrino wave closely followed by the visual burst. I believe they verified it barely in a couple of instances with counts of neutrino interactions in very low numbers.

 

[Ziggurat]

As d/dt tends towards 0 ? ie. take a photograph of two objects moving relative to one another, they magically appear at rest to one another.

Uh, no. d/dt is an operator, not a variable. It doesn't "tend towards" anything.

 

[iantresman]

Uh, no. d/dt is an operator, not a variable. It doesn't "tend towards" anything.

As δt → 0

 

[DHamilton]

Please don't dodge the question. Considering that what you say seems to go against mainstream science, how is it that YOU know these things ?

No intent to dodge a question, sir. Starting with the fact that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law? First don't assume that which is not in evidence, like the assumption that Coulomb's Law applies to elementary charged particles that are at rest (or nearly so) with respect to each other. I even got Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue to admit there was no data that substantiated this commonly held belief. So, step one would be to examine the evolution of vector fields of elementary charges that are at rest with respect to each other but that have motion with respect to some other third particle in the universe... More specifically, let's examine the vector fields that evolve from the apparent locations of two deuterons (D1 and D2) that are say, 5e-10 cm from each other but which are at rest with respect to each other... and the vector fields we are interested in examining are those that are related to the motion any third particle in the universe that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2. At the intersection point of such vector fields we see the H vectors are anti-parallel (where 'anti-parallel' in this case means pointing in exactly opposite directions). The thesis is that such an intersection produces a null point or a low energy state, one might think of it heuristically as a 'hole' towards which quantum particles might fall...bearing in mind the axiom that all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available. Consider that there are very many other 3rd particles in the universe that have some component of their motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2. The result is additive or a very 'deep' energy hole.. a super negentropic point towards which both D1 and D2 fall. So, D1 and D2 really are not attractively interactive but they are both falling towards a very low energy state location that exists because they are at rest with respect to each other. The implication is that the this is entirely electromagnetic and therefore that which was thought to be the 'nuclear strong force' is really this... Therefore gluons evaporate... as the fiction they always were. This is not a short range force but rather a short time scale availability force related to the average time of flight with respect to the mean free path. This is all implicit in Maxwell's equations. It isn't all that difficult... How did I know it... I worked it out...logical step by logical step...the way science ought to be done.

DHamilton

 

[Ziggurat]

As δt → 0

As dt -> 0, then dx -> 0 too. dx/dt does not approach zero, so the velocity does not. That's sort of the whole point of calculus.

 

[Dancing David]

My turn! Every four:

No intent to dodge a question, sir. Starting with the fact that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in momentum space will behave opposite to the expectation of Coulomb's Law? First don't assume that which is not in evidence, like the assumption that Coulomb's Law applies to elementary charged particles that are at rest (or nearly so) with respect to each other. I even got Ephraim Fischbach at Purdue to admit there was no data that substantiated this commonly held belief.

So, step one would be to examine the evolution of vector fields of elementary charges that are at rest with respect to each other but that have motion with respect to some other third particle in the universe... More specifically, let's examine the vector fields that evolve from the apparent locations of two deuterons (D1 and D2) that are say, 5e-10 cm from each other but which are at rest with respect to each other... and the vector fields we are interested in examining are those that are related to the motion any third particle in the universe that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2.

At the intersection point of such vector fields we see the H vectors are anti-parallel (where 'anti-parallel' in this case means pointing in exactly opposite directions). The thesis is that such an intersection produces a null point or a low energy state, one might think of it heuristically as a 'hole' towards which quantum particles might fall...bearing in mind the axiom that all quanta obtain to the lowest energy state available. Consider that there are very many other 3rd particles in the universe that have some component of their motion that is normal to a plane that contains D1 and D2.

The result is additive or a very 'deep' energy hole.. a super negentropic point towards which both D1 and D2 fall. So, D1 and D2 really are not attractively interactive but they are both falling towards a very low energy state location that exists because they are at rest with respect to each other. The implication is that the this is entirely electromagnetic and therefore that which was thought to be the 'nuclear strong force' is really this... Therefore gluons evaporate... as the fiction they always were.

This is not a short range force but rather a short time scale availability force related to the average time of flight with respect to the mean free path. This is all implicit in Maxwell's equations. It isn't all that difficult... How did I know it... I worked it out...logical step by logical step...the way science ought to be done.

DHamilton

 

[iantresman]

As dt -> 0, then dx -> 0 too. dx/dt does not approach zero, so the velocity does not. That's sort of the whole point of calculus.

.
Which takes me back to my comment that a photograph (dt=0) of a quantum physicists walking away from his cat, appears at rest to one another in the photo. A case of Heisenberg's uncertain photo You can't even tell whether they are still alive (Schrödinger photo)

But I'm not surprised the maths doesn't hold up.

 

[Ziggurat]

.
Which takes me back to my comment that a photograph (dt=0) of a quantum physicists walking away from his cat, appears at rest to one another in the photo.

A truly instantaneous photo does not contain motion information at all, and so cannot be said to make anything "appear" at rest except to the naive. A finite-time photo will reveal motion blurring. In no case will a photo indicate that objects in motion are at rest.

But I'm not surprised the maths doesn't hold up.

Indeed it does not. DHamilton's post was nonsensical and counterfactual.

 

[The Man]

It isn't all that difficult... How did I know it... I worked it out...logical step by logical step...the way science ought to be done.

DHamilton

Yeah, who needs all that observation, theory, experimentation, independent confirmation and other scientific method stuff anyway? It just gets in the way of some good old fashioned (though modernly demented) logic, “the way science ought to be done”.


“And how can this be?
For he is the Kwisatz Haderach” (1984 “Dune”)

 

[Reality Check]

Perhaps not as awash as we could be.

When a star is in its final fusion stage, fusing oxygen into iron, I'm told that some kind of nuclear reaction occurs in it's last gasp. That reaction creates a huge number of neutrinos at the same time as the gravity starts to squeeze the star's cooling core, and occurs only minutes before the final collapse. The neutrinos immediately escape at light speed, taking with them a large amount of the energy of the core, making the collapse of the core that much faster; in fact, causing the core to collapse away from the surrounding layers. When the core has collapsed as small as it can go (being pure neutronium), it suddenly stops, and the layers above collide with it and rebound, causing the exploding shell. In the process, the neutron star may be left behind, or if massive enough, a black hole.

Some years ago physicists built several neutrino detectors consisting of millions of gallons of water in very deep, radioactively quiet mines (one in Japan; I don't know about others), hoping to catch enough of them to discern this neutrino wave closely followed by the visual burst. I believe they verified it barely in a couple of instances with counts of neutrino interactions in very low numbers.

The neutrino detectors you are talking about were primarily constructed to look at solar neutrinos. Neutinos have been detected from all of the solar neutrino detectors. The counts in any detector are always low because neutrinos rarely interact with matter. But the total flux derived from the counts are enormous, e.g. the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory found "The total flux of active ⁸B neutrinos is determined to be 5.44+/-0.99×10⁶ cm^-2s^-1".
So 5,440,000 neutrinos are passing through every square centimetre of your body every second !

 

[DHamilton]

A truly instantaneous photo does not contain motion information at all, and so cannot be said to make anything "appear" at rest except to the naive. A finite-time photo will reveal motion blurring. In no case will a photo indicate that objects in motion are at rest.



Indeed it does not. DHamilton's post was nonsensical and counterfactual.

That's wishful thinking on your part. You've conflated a skewed tangential unrelated comment with the content of my post. There isn't a piece of data in the universe that demonstrates that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law... while on the other hand a pair of, say, protons... that are at rest with respect to one another will have parallel trajectories with respect to any third particle in the universe that has some component of its relative motion that is normal to a plane containing those two protons...

Those parallel trajectories will make them to be parallel current elements. In conductors in which charged particles are moving in the same direction (parallel current carrying wires, for example) the experimental data shows that they are strongly attractively interactive.

Now we know that the force between parallel current carrying conductors is given by:

F = (2k* I1*I2 * L)/R

where I1,I2= Current in amps = q/t and L = length of parallel conductors in meters (or v*t for particles),
K= 10e-7 nt/amp2 R= distance between the conductors in meters F= newtons

If the currents are anti-parallel (moving in exact opposite directions) to one another then the force is repulsive. And we know that there is no force between them (other than gravity) when they are not carrying a current so that the implication is that the relative motion of the charges is related to the force between them.

This follows from the idea is that a charge in motion is the simplest definition of a current and that a charged particle in motion is really a quantum scale or microcurrent element.

So it is that any two like charged fundamental particles which are in the same rest frame (recall that they have parallel velocities with respect to any third particle in the universe that has some component of its motion that is normal to a plane that contains both charged particles) are really two parallel current elements and so will be attractively interactive.

If those two particles are oppositely charged they still will have parallel velocities but they will be anti-parallel current elements and according to the equation would repel one another.

Any two particles which have relative motion already have anti-parallel trajectories. Remember, at the quantum or discrete particle level a particle doesn't have a single discrete velocity with respect to an ensemble of particles but has rather a multiplicity of velocities. In a universe of n particles each particle has n-1 velocities as it is juxtaposed with respect to every other particle in the universe of which there are exactly n-1. Therefore, it always has n-1 momentum states or one with respect to each and every other particle in the universe.

Charged particles that have relative motion, if they are the same sign will behave as Coulomb's law predicts and if they have opposite signs then they still behave according to Coulomb's Law... There has always been the assumption that charged particles at rest will also behave this way ...but there is actually no data that exists that confirms this ...primarily because that assumption isn't true at all. To deny what I'm saying is to deny the experimental data along with denying the most straightforward and reasonable interpretation of Maxwell's equations.

There damn well ought to be lots of resistance to this because it turns out to invalidate volumes of assumptions related to charged particles and this explodes right into the purview of astrophysics and cosmology... requiring thousands of tons of books to be hauled to the trash. Don't kill the messenger, guys... the message will live on because it happens to be the Truth ... and happens to quite a bit more substantial than the fictions you were too witless to believe before you swallowed them... Welcome to the light you citizens of the darkness...

DHamilton

 

[sol invictus]

There isn't a piece of data in the universe that demonstrates that elementary charged particles that are overlapping in the same momentum space will behave according to Coulomb's Law... while on the other hand a pair of, say, protons... that are at rest with respect to one another will have parallel trajectories with respect to any third particle in the universe that has some component of its relative motion that is normal to a plane containing those two protons...

You're like a physics madlib - a bunch of vaguely topical terms jumbled together into almost grammatical sentences.

I recommend you check these out:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/06/19/the-alternative-science-respectability-checklist/
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[DHamilton]

So you think that things can be moving with respect to each other while at rest with respect to each other? That's... interesting.



It kind of all falls down there.



With good reason.



Well, I'd rather you didn't hold my hand while you said that. It might make backing away slowly a little difficult.



Yes, yes they would. This is because it's nonsense.



Considering that your standards appear to be "I made this up one evening, therefore it's true and everyone else is stupid", not being up to your standards is a good thing.



Actually, no. We can see that various particles, like protons and neutrons, are made up of smaller particles. Whether the force that holds them together is the strong force or something else entirely, the particles will still be there.



If there were any I'm sure we could. Fortunately you don't get a PhD or become a professor by slavishly doing anything, it requires research, usually original research. Don't you think it's just possible that people who have spent their entire lives learning, researching and generally trying to find out how things work might just know a little more than some random who thought he had an idea once?

I'm always amused when people say 'Actually, no'.. as if they really had some hard data that substantiated their belief. It is possible that people who have spent their entire lives have also spent them laboring under horrid misconceptions...this isn't really a crime.. it is rather a normal human condition. It doesn't matter if they have a PhD or not. Most people in condensed matter physics these days know that the BCS theory of superconduction is.. in the words of Nobelist Philip Anderson.. 'A catalog of failures'. Yet the three got the Nobel Prize in physics for making it up... now it is generally recognized to be nonsense. People labored for years under the assumption that the BCS theory was correct... after all Bardeen, Cooper and Schreiffer got the Nobel prize, didn't they? I have to say ...that after such a post, filled with condescension and arrogance that you no longer can be considered to be a person who normally is involved in rational thought or discourse. Instead you're presumptious and ill mannered. Parents are not doing a very good job these days... and so many children leave the home without a shred of grace in their souls.

Argument from authority isn't a valid argument... and it is sad that I should have to point this out..

 

[DHamilton]

DHamilton:
There is no good reason to think dark matter forms in rings in stars and planets.
There are very good reasons to think dark matter has nothing to do with protons and neutrons and everyday matter like that.

There is perhaps 'no good reason of which you are aware'. I'll buy that...that you are ignorant and unschooled and incapable of forming carefully worded sentences that leave for the possibility that you might have some vacancies in your knowledge of the universe.

Okay, you can call it dark matter and I'll call what I suppose is the same thing as what you think is dark matter 'Isaacium'... which really consists of protons and neutrons that lie along the gravitational terminus axis of a dense flux loop structure which things are the primary phenomenal or operational core of a star.

I'm speaking of a large scale standing wave boson that can be mathematically described as a Del X E or Del X H vector field... and I refer to it as a standing wave boson because it oscillates back and forth between the two states.

In the case of our own local star, sol, the standing wave boson oscillates approximately on a 22 year long cycle, 11 year half cycle and a 5.5 year mode change period.

During the solar minimum phase it is in the Del X E vector field mode as a toroidal E flux loop system whose secondary vectors are H so that it displays the features of a large scale magnetic dipole.

During the change to the compact H loop mode (Del X H vector field mode) it loses the magnetic dipole characteristics and begins to display the properties of a large scale electric dipole and produces large scale polar coronal holes that are indicative of large scale electric field gradients in the polar regions.

During the solar maximum phase when it is in the compact Del X H vector field mode it produces a compact toroidal axis gravitational field and because of the intense or strong charge seperation effect of a gravitational field electrons are excluded from the gravitational terminus... that means the matter has only nuclear volume so it is very compact, very dense. Because electrons are excluded from the gravitational terminus then electrons cannot transition down to lower energy states and emit photons... so it is also dark.

If that primary field is suddenly displaced from the ring of Isaacium that accumulates along the gravitational terminus and if it is displaced faster than the Isaacium can move to keep up with it...then a cascade of electrons will fall down to the Isaacium and it will then rapidly begin to differentiate into a large variety of atomic species... this acquisition of electrons causes the Isaacium to go nearly instantaneously from nuclear volume to atomic volume which can be a billion fold increase.

That extremely rapid volumetric increase is seen as a violent explosion and the acquisition of electrons produces a huge flux of photons to be emitted. This is exactly what we see when we see a supernova... and the debris or resultant aftermath is an expanding ring of heavy elements... Consider supernova 1987A to be a classic example of evidence of an Isaacium ring in the core of a star. How do you get a ring of expanding heavy elements... Iron and cobalt ? How about you start with an Isaacium ring in the core of the star in the first place?

The unification of electromagnetism and gravity isn't nearly so complex as one might think. But it is absolutely necessary to get a couple of things right about charge particle behavior.

DHamilton

 

[DHamilton]

Please don't dodge the question. Considering that what you say seems to go against mainstream science, how is it that YOU know these things ?

In reality ...what I have to say doesn't go against mainstream science. Mainstream science hasn't unified electromagnetism and gravity and that is well known. To do so, is not going against mainstream science but rather is fulfilling a long sought goal of mainstream science.

Many in the mainstream of academia believe elementary charge particles will obey Coulomb's Law even when at rest with respect to each other...but in keeping with a tenant of science... there is no reason to believe this if there is no data that shows it to be true. To believe it without data that can be interpreted to substantiate such a belief is not science...but rather is more akin to religion.

If people in what they believed was mainstream science have been practicing 'religion' instead of science, then they cannot be said to be very 'scientific' can they?

Cheers

DHamilton

 

[shadron]

According to the Wiki, we don't know much about anti-neutrinos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutrino

Uh, no. The wiki actually says, "Antineutrinos interact with other matter only through the gravitational and weak forces, making them very difficult to detect experimentally". And so they are, but so also are straight (so to speak) neutrinos. The fact that it's difficult to detect them doesn't say we don't know a lot about them; we just can't find one on the street when we need it.

 

[shadron]

The neutrino detectors you are talking about were primarily constructed to look at solar neutrinos. Neutinos have been detected from all of the solar neutrino detectors. The counts in any detector are always low because neutrinos rarely interact with matter. But the total flux derived from the counts are enormous, e.g. the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory found "The total flux of active ⁸B neutrinos is determined to be 5.44+/-0.99×10⁶ cm^-2s^-1".
So 5,440,000 neutrinos are passing through every square centimetre of your body every second !

Yup, awash is the right word.

It's possible I didn't remember the info I presented correctly (it's sometimes a pain to type entries while on a break at work; no time to get it all right). So I went out and looked. At http://www.ps.uci.edu/~superk/sk-info.html#solar I found an explanation like the one I constructed, but with more detail. And it says:

In 1987 a super-nova (called SN1987A) explosion occurred in a nearby galaxy (a small irregular galaxy which is a satellite of our Galaxy) the Large Magellanic Cloud, at about 170,000 light years away. And the neutrino burst was observed by IMB and Kamiokande detectors. A few neutrino events in a short period of a few seconds were seen exactly at the same moment in both detectors.

The flood of neutrinos is caused by the high compression of the core causing protons and electron to combine into neutrons, with the release of a flood of neutrinos. The Super-Kamiokande detector is a 50,000 ton ring-imaging water Cerenkov detector located at a depth of 2700 meters water equivalent in the Kamioka Mozumi mine in Japan.

As an aside, it was interesting googling "nova neutrino" to find the data I wanted, because not only was there a NOVA program in 2006 about neutrinos, but a new neutrino detecter that is being built in Wisconsin to detect neutrinos produced at Fermilab is named NOvA.

 

[DHamilton]

Yeah, who needs all that observation, theory, experimentation, independent confirmation and other scientific method stuff anyway? It just gets in the way of some good old fashioned (though modernly demented) logic, “the way science ought to be done”.


“And how can this be?
For he is the Kwisatz Haderach” (1984 “Dune”)

Is it your personal policy to show yourself to be an arrogant mannerless fool? The observation, experiment, etc. already exists. A data set can be looked at from a different angle ...the data is the same... the information yield may be much greater. The way science ought to be done... is by the use of logic, reason, and rational thinking. The universe is awash in data, and there's presently enough data to unify electromagnetism and gravity but you simply lack the ability to see the picture in the same way that an untrained person may be unable to see the 3D picture that is structured in a 'Magic Eye' print that you can buy at any Wal-Mart. But you hardly have any call to be both arrogant and vitrolic; such behavior only shows the lack of love that your parents had for you that they set you loose in the world without the requisite grace a civilized man or woman ought to have before they begin intellectual commerce in the world.

Tell me, please, why you're so nourished, as it were, with hatred? It would be interesting to understand what is in you that resists enlightenment. Or it would be interesting to know why you think an anonymous forum is the proper place to eruct your pernicious manners?