Fermi and dark matter

[sol invictus]

That does not alter my point one iota, in fact it makes my question that much more important. The physical infrastructure of each galaxy is going to "pass on through" just like your presumed "dark matter". RC seems to be under the impression that he can distinguish between "baryonic' and "non-baryonic" matter in these images, but that is simply *impossible*. You have no way to differentiate various types of matter in these sorts of lensing studies. Sooner or later I will drive that point home, but you'll have to stop skirting the direct questions.

They don't differentiate between them using lensing alone.

Have you actually read their paper, Michael? Do you know what we're talking about?

So they are going to act just like "dark matter" in their ability to "pass through' other objects and they will necessarily be inside that same blue blob where you claim "dark matter' is located.

Yes, to first approximation. That forms an important part of their analysis.

You *assume* that *all* forms of MACHO dark matter account for a tiny fraction of the mass, but how do you actually know that?

Microlensing surveys. MACHOs cannot form a significant fraction of the DM in the Milky Way.

That may be (probably is) the case with our own galaxy because we can track individual stars in our own galaxy, but how do we figure out what a distant black hole might contain in terms of total mass?

We don't even know for sure there are black holes at the centers of those galaxies. But if there are, we can put upper limits on their mass in many different ways. Not that it matters, because even an absurdly massive BH would not do away with the need for DM. We know the distribution of DM in typical galaxies, and it's a diffuse cloud, not a point mass.

The bottom line is that your trying to 'sell' our technology as being better than it is, and our knowledge of the universe as being 'more advanced' than it actually is.

Huh?

Until recently we didn't even believe that neutrinos had mass, yet now we believe they do. Surely that must account for some of that "missing mass", without resorting to "unknown" and "theoretical" forms of matter?

They do - neutrinos are a form of non-baryonic DM - which is an excellent example of how ridiculous your objections to DM are. Every one of them applied just as well before the discovery of neutrino masses as it did after (0=0). Unfortunately neutrinos make up a very small fraction of the total DM, so there must be something else too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now this I can answer a bit.

This is what I did at university.

If you are talking about MACHOs in galaxies/halos

FYI, I was actually a little loose with the term "MACHO" in my statement. I was mostly referring to the mass in the black holes and the surrounding accretion disks. Whereas that might be a relatively 'small' number as it relates to the total mass of the whole galaxy, in relationship to the total mass of the ICM, it's not necessarily that insignificant. The stars, MACHO forms of matter, and the black holes are going to 'pass though' the collision process just like "dark matter".

There's no way he can specifically distinguish between the various types of mass in this image. That material could be composed of lots of various types of normal material, including more stars than we realize, larger black holes than we realize, more dense, more neutral plasma than we realize. It could contain "current flow" that both increases the mass and contributes to the rotation pattern in unexpected ways. It could be a lot of things, all of which I'd be more inclined to explore than simply "assuming" that a new type of matter is necessary.

My primary point is that baryonic material (particularly the clumpy and dense kind) will "pass on through" the collision process and end up directly inside that blue region, just like rest of the "missing mass".

then they cannot be above a certain proportion of the mass that is known to exist in the galaxy (because of say, galactic rotation curves) because when you stare at a star (many stars, but one at a time) for a long while, you can have a look see and see how many "blinks" occur because something passed along your line of sight.

Well, if in fact the galaxies are twice as bright and have twice as many point sources and twice as many solar systems then the MACHO types of material will also double. We also now know that neutrinos have mass and most of those calculations from Princeton were done prior to that knowledge. There are reasonable avenues of exploration (like neutrino mass) and there are "wild guesses". I'm not into the wild guess process, particularly in light of recent revelations. We could be underestimating the number of small stars in a galaxy in relationship to the number of larger one we can actually see light from, and we could be losing half the light between here and there due to dust. I really think we should be at least be attempting to "close the gap" between the mass we can identify and the mass we cannot based on what we've learned recently. It's not even clear to me that it was understood that black holes existed at the center of all galaxies when some of those calculations were mentioned. Granted it not a huge part of the total mass, but it all adds up to a number the closes the gap between the matter we can identify and the material we cannot.

Do that properly, over a very large sample size, in many ways and you can account, statistically, for how many of these MACHO type objects you expect to have in a galaxy.

Sadly (for me) they cannot represent much more than a few percent of the mass we infer to be present in the galaxy/halo.


If you wish to borrow the word MACHO for your own purposes to talk about electrons or "filament threads" then you would have to make that clear, else most of the bods on here would then be talking at cross purposes with you.

Then I will take your professional advice and focus on the mass of the electron flow for awhile. That flow pattern may even help explain why the plasma sheets "stay together" and 'pass through' the collision process.

 

[Michael Mozina]

But the standard model is purely driven by empirical support.

I beg to differ. At the very most only 4% of the standard model enjoys empirical support. At the very least, 96% of the standard model is composed of "theoretical" entities that have never shown up in controlled experiments on Earth. Where does "dark energy" come from? Got a gram of 'dark matter' for me to play with in a lab?

Inflation presumably no longer even exists in nature so I simply have to "take that on faith" at this point in time based upon a "faith" in a "bang" theory that frankly I'm not attached to.

I'd say I'm even being gracious letting you claim that 4% of Lambda-CDM theory enjoys empirical support.

IMO you are confusing 'mathematical constructs' with 'empirical support'. They are not one and the same thing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Now all the electric universe stuff I have read is probably about 10 years old but I am not aware of how the EU predicts to within a significant degree of precision elemental abundances.

I can't speak for all EU proponents by the way, but I can speak for myself on that point:

http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+mozina/0/1/0/all/0/1

Suffice to say I do not believe that sun's are mostly made of hydrogen, I believe that hydrogen is a byproduct of neutron decay and suns are mass separated. Hydrogen and helium happen to be the lightest and most highly charged particle/mass of the elements of the periodic table. They most easily escape the gravity well of a sun due to current flows between the sun's surface and the heliosphere.

The little that I know of it (which as I say is probably outdated) simply flies in the face of well known and well tested particle physics theories (which are tested right here on the Earth, as I think you stated you would prefer to happen).

Actually Birkeland's terella experiments have stood the test of time and do (even to this day) accurately reflect what we observe in solar physical processes, including the coronal loops, the high energy discharges, the jets and the high speed solar wind particles. All of these were key "predictions" of his experiments.

Whereas EU theory has practical application in the 'real world', where would I even get some "dark energy" if I wanted to try to use it as an energy source? Why would it be difficult to find it 70% of the physical universe is made of this stuff? "Dark matter" is supposedly many times more abundant than "normal" matter, but the whole collective of astronomers can't produce a single gram of this stuff for closer inspection?

Can't you put yourself in my skeptical shoes for just a second and see how suspicious that all sounds?

I know for a fact that the mainstream underplays the role of 'current flow" even inside our own solar system or "coronal loops" would not remain a mystery to them, nor would solar wind, or jets or anything Birkeland already demonstrated in a lab. There is a specific set of blinders on when it comes to EU theory. It's seen somehow as the "evil alternative" by the mainstream. That's the way it is treated at least. It is certainly no surprise to me then that the grossly underestimate the number of electrons in a given solar system and galaxy.

The other thing you might want check out sometime if you have not do so is Peratt's work with galaxy formation based on plasma physical models. Do you really think that it is a pure coincidence that charged and/or current carrying plasmas will naturally form into various shapes that just so happen to resemble galaxies?

 

[Michael Mozina]

We know the distribution of DM in typical galaxies, and it's a diffuse cloud, not a point mass.

You can't actually make that distinction from lensing data millions if not billions of light years away. Even if we assume that is true, neutral dense clouds could serve a similar purpose.

Do you actually agree with RC by the way that 99% of the material in the ICM is "ionized"?

They do - neutrinos are a form of non-baryonic DM - which is an excellent example of how ridiculous your objections to DM are. Every one of them applied just as well before the discovery of neutrino masses as it did after (0=0). Unfortunately neutrinos make up a very small fraction of the total DM, so there must be something else too.

We've been over that road already. "Laws" of physics depended upon the existence of neutrinos and their existence came from what was learned in "controlled experimentation". They show up in the lab in controlled experiments too. No laws of physics rely upon the existence of 'dark matter', or dark energy, just one "faster than light speed expansion" creation theory.

 

[Tubbythin]

You can't actually make that distinction from lensing data millions if not billions of light years away. Even if we assume that is true, neutral dense clouds could serve a similar purpose.

We know from the rotation curves.

We've been over that road already. "Laws" of physics depended upon the existence of neutrinos and their existence came from what was learned in "controlled experimentation". They show up in the lab in controlled experiments too. No laws of physics rely upon the existence of 'dark matter', or dark energy, just one "faster than light speed expansion" creation theory.

No, the law of gravity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

How about answering this question then RC....

What is the energy source that keeps the plasma in the ICM "hot" in your opinion if not "current flow"?

 

[DazzaD]

IMO you are confusing 'mathematical constructs' with 'empirical support'. They are not one and the same thing.

With the greatest respect I believe I am well aware of what has empirical support (the "standard model" collection of best ideas in cosmology) and what is a mathematical construct (for the time being, most of the string and brane type theories).

As much as I wonder at the mathematical beauty of certain solutions I am grounded enough to distinguish between those that have direct physical support and those that remain a pipe dream.

 

[Michael Mozina]

We know from the rotation curves.

As I understand it, the curves suggest that the bulk of our missing mass is located on the outside edges of the galaxy. It could still be composed of anything, any type of mass. The rotation patterns cannot distinguish between "baryonic" and "non-baryonic" matter in the sense that all types of mass would provide exactly the same pattern.

No method of mass detection allows us to distinguish between "normal' matter and "non-baryonic dark matter". There are no controlled experiments that provide that information. Although I will grant you that LHC is an experiment that *could* one day do such a thing, no "uncontrolled observation" of something that is millions if not billions of light years away could ever hope to do that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

With the greatest respect I believe I am well aware of what has empirical support (the "standard model" collection of best ideas in cosmology) and what is a mathematical construct (for the time being, most of the string and brane type theories).

As much as I wonder at the mathematical beauty of certain solutions I am grounded enough to distinguish between those that have direct physical support and those that remain a pipe dream.

I'm afraid then that I do not understand why you too are not attracted to EU theory. It suffers from a lack of mathematical refinement, but it enjoys 100% empirical support and all of it's core tenets have been demonstrated to work in a lab.

 

[DazzaD]

Well, if in fact the galaxies are twice as bright and have twice as many point sources and twice as many solar systems then the MACHO types of material will also double.

But that wont change a thing.

If we knew of NO MACHOs, and if we knew about ALL the MACHOs, either way the microlensing experiments would tell us if they can make up 1% or 100% of the "missing mass" from a galaxy.

"Finding more" isnt really finding more, in that the microlensing didnt find enough to account for the missing mass.

Have I explained myself or just made it murkier? Please advise.

Suffice to say I do not believe that sun's are mostly made of hydrogen, I believe that hydrogen is a byproduct of neutron decay and suns are mass separated. Hydrogen and helium happen to be the lightest and most highly charged particle/mass of the elements of the periodic table. They most easily escape the gravity well of a sun due to current flows between the sun's surface and the heliosphere.

I find this interesting... especially where it may 'conflict' with observations of solar neutrinos that seem to infer the processes going on at the core of our Sun. So I presume the energy source is not fusion from your point of view at all?

Whereas EU theory has practical application in the 'real world', where would I even get some "dark energy" if I wanted to try to use it as an energy source? Why would it be difficult to find it 70% of the physical universe is made of this stuff? "Dark matter" is supposedly many times more abundant than "normal" matter, but the whole collective of astronomers can't produce a single gram of this stuff for closer inspection?

Can't you put yourself in my skeptical shoes for just a second and see how suspicious that all sounds?

Oh I have my skeptical shoes on all the time, I simply am unable to remove them!

That is what is so amazing about this dark energy/dark matter issue. That tens of thousands of the top bods are willing to contemplate such a thing actually screams that there is something very amazing/weird/strange/unsual going on.

If anyone of them could come up with half a theory that could explain half of it I am sure a fair few would jump at the chance to come out of this "we dont know what is going on" state of affairs and they would grasp this "down to Earth" theory and cling on for dear life.

That the vast majority dont speaks volumes I think.

 

[Tubbythin]

As I understand it, the curves suggest that the bulk of our missing mass is located on the outside edges of the galaxy. It could still be composed of anything, any type of mass. The rotation patterns cannot distinguish between "baryonic" and "non-baryonic" matter in the sense that all types of mass would provide exactly the same pattern.

You were objecting to SI's statement:

We know the distribution of DM in typical galaxies, and it's a diffuse cloud, not a point mass.

We know this from the rotation curves. I don't see what your objection to "We know the distribution of DM in typical galaxies, and it's a diffuse cloud, not a point mass." is?

No method of mass detection allows us to distinguish between "normal' matter and "non-baryonic dark matter".

We can determine how much is visible and how much is dark. We can also determine whether its diffuse or clumpy. We find the former. If its diffuse and doesn't radiate or absorb radiation then it must be non-baryonic.

 

[Tubbythin]

I'm afraid then that I do not understand why you too are not attracted to EU theory. It suffers from a lack of mathematical refinement,

It suffers from no mathematical support whatsoever. Which would mean its no more a scientific theory than Godditit.

but it enjoys 100% empirical support and all of it's core tenets have been demonstrated to work in a lab.

Nope. On the contrary, observations clearly show that the numbers, if any EU proponent had ever bothered to calculate them, don't match reality. By of orders of magnitudes. That shifts it from non-science to anti-science.

 

[Reality Check]

Your answer is "less than helpful". My question was legitimate and it deserves an answer. Black holes are thought to exist at the core of most if not all galaxies.
...snipp...
In your opinion, where are the stars and other "condensed" forms of matter from the ICM located in relationship to the blobs?

There is no "stars and other "condensed" forms of matter from the ICM".
The blobs are the ICM.

 

[Reality Check]

That does not alter my point one iota, in fact it makes my question that much more important. The physical infrastructure of each galaxy is going to "pass on through" just like your presumed "dark matter". RC seems to be under the impression that he can distinguish between "baryonic' and "non-baryonic" matter in these images, but that is simply *impossible*.

Any one who knows a little physics can distinguish between baryonic and non-baryonic matter in these images of the ICM.

The fact that galaxies rarely collide in the colliding galactic clusters is nothing to do with the observations. These observations are of the ICM. The images are of the ICM.

The Bullet Cluster and MACS J0025.4-1222 and Abell 520 are observations of the intracluster medium.

Trolls often use the straw man logical fallacy. Please don't fall into the same idiotic trap.

 

[Reality Check]

How about answering this question then RC....

What is the energy source that keeps the plasma in the ICM "hot" in your opinion if not "current flow"?

As stated before:
Intracluster medium

Heating
The ICM is heated to high temperatures by the gravitational energy released by the formation of the cluster from smaller structures. Kinetic energy gained from the gravitational field is converted to thermal energy by shocks. The high temperature ensures that the elements present in the ICM are ionised. Light elements in the ICM have all the electrons removed from their nuclei.

 

[Reality Check]

I find this interesting... especially where it may 'conflict' with observations of solar neutrinos that seem to infer the processes going on at the core of our Sun. So I presume the energy source is not fusion from your point of view at all?

Hi DazzaD, I suggest that you don't ask MM about his "Iron Sun" idea before looking at the Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina in the "Electric universe theories here" thread.

As someone who knows something about astronomy you may find this amusing: MM's web site claims to see actual mountain ranges in the running difference animations constructed from images taken by the TRACE spacecraft in the 171A pass band (i.e. the Sun's corona!).

 

[DazzaD]

Hi DazzaD, I suggest that you don't ask MM about his "Iron Sun" idea before looking at the Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina in the "Electric universe theories here" thread.

As someone who knows something about astronomy you may find this amusing: MM's web site claims to see actual mountain ranges in the running difference animations constructed from images taken by the TRACE spacecraft in the 171A pass band (i.e. the Sun's corona!).

Mountain ranges? Ok......................

I will have a look see in that quoted thread first then, thanks for the heads up.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It suffers from no mathematical support whatsoever. Which would mean its no more a scientific theory than Godditit.

This is what I mean about EU theory being the "evil topic" in astronomy these days. On most topics of conversation I have found you personally to be very (extremely) reasonable and very rational. That particular comment however is simply and utterly absurd. EU theory has enjoyed both mathematical and empirical support since the work of Kristian Birkeland. It was 'refined' in it's mathematical descriptions by Dr. Charles Bruce and expressed in MHD theory by the guy the wrote MHD theory, and his first generation students. There's a ton of mathematical quantification to be found in Alfven's work alone.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...eq=no_params&author=Alfven, Hannes&db_key=AST

Just out of curiosity, have you even bothered to read the book Comic Plasma?

What is it with you guys and the irrational hostility towards EU theory? You do not treat EU/PC theory like any other mathematically quantified theory, not like MOND theory, not like any of your metaphysically enhanced "big dark inflated bang" theories. What's up with that?

On most topics of conversation you seem to be highly educated on the topic and right on the money with your statements. On this topic however you begin with a ridiculous claim that ignores the whole history of this theory going all the way back go Birkeland. Birkeland by the way "predicted" (real empirical predictions by the way) "coronal loops", "jets", "high speed solar wind" and all the things that still perplex 'modern (dark age) astronomy" today.

Your response seems to be an emotional knee jerk reaction, and one based entirely on ignorance of history. I respect you a great deal which is why I'm telling you on this topic you're dead wrong.

Nope. On the contrary, observations clearly show that the numbers, if any EU proponent had ever bothered to calculate them, don't match reality. By of orders of magnitudes. That shifts it from non-science to anti-science.

Oh baloney. When your BB numbers have been off by OOMs, you simply added something "dark" into the batter or stirred in a dead and invisible inflation deity into the math. Astronomers have then tried to sweep their glaring failures of the past under the carpet with comments like:

"See look how well our new and improved metaphysical dark-inflation theory "predicts" what we observe in space?" It's like watching the Fox news channel of astronomy. You folks seem to have blatantly ignored every single failed prediction that ever happened. Astronomers tend to ignore the historical reality that BB theory has *NEVER* accurately matched 'prediction". It's been "postdicted" together with metaphysical band-aids since Guth started the trend back in the early 70's. It's been down(metaphysical)hill ever since.

EU does in fact suffer from a critical handicap in terms of "competing" with metaphysics. It is restricted to what *can* be physically and empirically demonstrated to work in lab. One is of course allowed to "scale" a known and demonstrated process, but in EU theory you can't toss "magic energy" into the equations. It therefore takes a bit longer to work out a 'real solution' based on real (empirical) physics. On this topic, I'm willing to be patient and put my trust empirical physics. On the other hand I have no faith at all in 96% of current theory or any of the dead inflation deities to choose from these days.

 

[sol invictus]

EU does in fact suffer from a critical handicap in terms of "competing" with metaphysics. It is restricted to what *can* be physically and empirically demonstrated to work in lab. One is of course allowed to "scale" a known and demonstrated process, but in EU theory you can't toss "magic energy" into the equations. It therefore takes a bit longer to work out a 'real solution' based on real (empirical) physics.

There is for once an element of truth to that. Electromagnetism and classical gravity are extremely well-understood theories. The quantum version of E&M in particular is in a specific sense the best-tested scientific theory in the history of the human race. As a result, we know absolutely for certain that EU is a complete and utter failure at describing the universe. It's not even close, it's not even in the ballpark, and we can be so confident precisely because we understand E&M so very well.

Theories of dark matter, on the other hand, are far less well understood. Really there's a family of theories, a few of which might succeed in accounting for the current data. Since the rules are much less well known, there is indeed much more "wiggle room".

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle famously wrote: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." That's what makes science so much fun.