Invisible Dark Matter: Scientists have come up empty-handed.

"IT" pays to read the article

Not at all, and I believe you already know that. We have pure speculative hypotheticals, and then we accepted scientific theories: At this time, DM is still accepted scientific theory to explain that already mentioned.

That's certainly correct. If we find out that DM actually cannot account for all the anomalous scenarios, or that it does not exist beyond known MACHOS and WIMPS, then cosmology would indeed have a problem.
Until then, I'll stick to the current reasonable convincing evidence as mentioned.

When are you going to learn to concern yourself less about the icons...they're there, and I'll use them.
The other, sure I have speculative ideas, but I don't fool myself into believing that my speculative ideas [beyond current subject] in any way invalidates what our professionals have researched and established as most likely.

If you would actually have read the articles, and you were actually concerned and interested in the truth, you would realise at this time we still need DM to explain the anomalous observations we see.
And that's how it stands at this time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Paddoboy,

Let me raise the bar for you. Can you please explain these anomalous observations requiring DM. No copy paste please, use your words...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm not here to take demands from you.
You are able to read, try it!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More science for those interested.....

https://news.brown.edu/articles/2016/07/lux

extract:

The quest continues

While the LUX experiment successfully eliminated a large swath of mass ranges and interaction-coupling strengths where WIMPs might exist, the WIMP model itself, “remains alive and viable,” said Gaitskell, the Brown University physicist. And the meticulous work of LUX scientists will aid future direct detection experiments.

“We viewed this as a David and Goliath race between ourselves and the much larger Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN in Geneva,” Gaitskell said. “LUX was racing over the last three years to get first evidence for a dark matter signal. We will now have to wait and see if the new run this year at the LHC will show evidence of dark matter particles, or if the discovery occurs in the next generation of larger direct detectors.”

Among those next generation experiments will be the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) experiment, which will replace LUX at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. Compared to LUX’s one-third-ton of liquid xenon, LZ will have a 10-ton liquid xenon target, which will fit inside the same 72,000-gallon tank of pure water used by LUX to help fend off external radiation.

 

So you do not know. You are just fooling around ?

 

...nothing cogent at all...
...just the usual bluster and continued waffling...
My condolences, paddoboy...

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Condolences? I believe you are having yourself on somewhat.
DM stands as a necessary and evidenced theory, to explain the anomalous scenarios I have mentioned.
You have yet to show any reputable article that refutes that..plenty of hypotheticals, and other speculative scenarios, that's all...that's science.....Science in action in other words.....doing what it does best...the real scientists I mean.
The DM theory stands and is certainly needed.
That has not changed.

 

Maybe the reduced Compton wavelength and the standard Compton wavelength have been conflated somewhere along the way, it's easy enough to do if you don't distinguish between reduced and standard forms. Also, just because you make an error on a universal sum model, does not mean that all your other models are incorrect.

If you made this error you would expect to see that the total calculated matter = (dark matter% + ordinary matter%) = ordinary matter% times \(2 \pi\). The results from PLANCK 2013 show this ratio +/-3%.

(1) Standard Compton wavelength = \({\lambda} = \frac{h}{m c}\)
(2) Reduced Compton wavelength = \(\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi} = \frac{\hbar}{m c} = {\bar \lambda}\)

If you conflate (2) and (1) and make c = 1

(3) Conflated Compton wavelength = \({\lambda} = \frac{\hbar}{m}\)

The \(\lambda\) in (3) is \(2 \pi\) times larger than it should be. If solved for m, m will be \(2 \pi\) times larger.

If this wavelength conflation is not identified, both sides are multiplied by \(2 \pi\), and (3) is solved for mass (and converted back to (1)) you get the following.

(4) Conflated mass = \(2 \pi m = \frac {\hbar 2 \pi}{\lambda} = \frac {h}{\lambda}\) = (1)

Stephen Hawking says on the bottom of the 13th page of his "Soft hair on black holes" paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1601.00921

Which is obviously (3) for a standard Compton wavelength or (2) for a reduced Compton wavelength. The lack of a canonical definition of angular velocity \(\omega\) and its components between GR and QM doesn't help.

 

The angular velocity takes the complexity to a higher level.

(1) Standard wavelength = \({\lambda} = \frac{h}{m c}\)
(5) Angular velocity = \({\omega} = {2 \pi f}\)
(6) Ordinary frequency = \({f} = \frac{v}{\lambda}\)
(7) Angular velocity = \({\omega} = {2 \pi \frac{v}{\lambda}}\)
(8) Angular wavelength = \(\lambda = \frac{2 \pi v}{\omega}\)

Substitute (8) into (1)

(9) Angular wavelength = \(\frac{h}{m c} = \frac{2 \pi v}{\omega}\)

(10) Phase Velocity = \( {v} = \frac{h \omega}{2 \pi m c}\)

(11) or \( {v} = \frac{\hbar \omega}{m c}\)

Solved for m

(12) mass = \({m} = \frac{h \omega}{2 \pi v c}\)

(13) or \( {m} = \frac{\hbar \omega}{v c}\)

(12) and (13) must have both sides multiplied by \(2 \pi\) to get back to form (1).

Which gets us back to our conflated wavelength (3) and conflated mass (4) if we regard the wavelength component of the angular velocity as anything but a standard Compton wavelength.

 

Here's a great article and some relevant extracts, reprinted from materials provided by University of Southern Denmark.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160314111131.htm

What dark matter might be
Researchers present a new model
Date:
March 14, 2016

There are indications that we might never see the universe's mysterious dark matter. Now researchers turn this somehow depressing scenario into an advantage and propose a new model for what dark matter might be -- and how to test it.


For decades, researchers have tried to detect this invisible dark matter. Several types of devices have been put up on Earth and in space to capture the particles that dark matter is supposed to consist of, and experiments have attempted to create a dark matter particle by colliding ordinary matter particles at very high temperatures.



Despite all these initiatives no dark particle has yet been detected.

"Maybe it's because we have looked after dark particles in a way that will never be able to reveal them. Maybe dark matter is of a different character and needs to be looked for in a different way," says Martin Sloth, associate professor at The Centre for Cosmology and Particle Physics Phenomenology (CP3-Origins), University of Southern Denmark.


"If the universe indeed was as hot as calculated in our model, several gravitational waves from the very early childhood of the universe would have been created. We might be able to find out in the near future."


"If these experiments do not detect such signals, then our model will be falsified. Thus gravitational waves can be used to test our model," he says.

 

In a recent exchange between myself and James, in "http://www.sciforums.com/threads/wh...n-accepted-theory.157175/page-13#post-3394921" the following was raised re non mainstream scientific claims within the science forums.
I see it as appropriate to raise here at this time.

 

Would you be so kind as to enlighten the Members of SciForums exactly why you "see it as appropriate to raise here at this time", paddoboy?

 

There's no real question that DM is the current best-contender hypothesis for explaining the anomalies we see - Galactic rotation, bullet cluster, et al.

Sure, there are some competing hypotheses, and they may yet be borne out. But so far, none of them have done so.

TG, DMOE, you may certainly believe that there are other, better hypotheses, and that the studies done to-date have convinced you, but they have not convinced the general scientific community.

And because of that, Pad needs only defer to mainstream science, of which we should all be aware if we are going to discuss it.

 

DaveC426913:

Newly discovered vast extended halos around galaxies (extremely ionized particles plasma); plus many hitherto undetectable low brightness star clusters/dwarf galaxies and other massive dust nebulae features etc, brings the observations of the bullet cluster into proper understanding. The stuff which they thought was EM inactive (and was then presumed to be displaced or separated from the ordinary matter of the galaxies) during collisions, was always out there beyond all the galaxies, and is now understood that all galaxies, clusters and superclusters are already embedded in collective sea of now increasingly visible, plasma material and other low brightness galaxies, masses and features that was already out there while the galaxies evolve and collide etc. So that observation is no longer support for Non-EM dark matter, but is now being identified for what it has always been: ordinary matter and plasma which hitherto was not readily seen because of low EM brightness values which previous telescopes could not detect (hence the earlier attribution to exotic DM due to the only sign that something was there was the gravitational effects observations).

The Non-EM type DM "explanation" for galactic rotation curves have also to be revisited and perhaps re-jigged in ordinary matter "explanation" terms, in light of the newly detectable halos of that ordinary massive plasma and material and features outside the galaxies; combined with the increasing amount of ordinary massive plasma matter masses and low brightness features and clouds and streams in and around the previous galactic disc estimated extents and mass.

The old arguments and examples die hard as 'support' for the increasingly redundant extra-ordinary matter DM. Probably because the institutional nature of science and theoretical cosmology orthodoxy writers and pop-science "explainers" are still churning out the older narratives. Of course, there are a few agile and attentive members of the scientific community, who, maybe because they are not so heavily invested or dependent on the institutional nature of the 'cosmology theory and publishing business', are seriously paying attention to the newest discoveries and implications when they are all taken into account, and are also increasingly questioning the older narratives now less tenable than before when telescopes with the necessary EM capabilities could not find the ordinary material which is now being found in vast quantities everywhere they look.

But all the above is my opinion based on my reading and understanding of all the newer discoveries which make the extra-ordinary type DM no longer necessary, and no longer supported by those bullet cluster and galaxy rotation observations which are now easily explained by all the additional ordinary material being found that explains much of the galaxy etc behavior and phenomena.

Thanks for listening to my opinion based on my own understanding of what I have been reading in the recent astronomy discoveries literature.

 

Nowhere have I stated that I "believe that there are other, better hypotheses", nor that any "studies done to-date have convinced" me of any thing, DaveC426913.
As a Scientist, I remain purely Objective...period.
I simply Posted some articles that clearly indicated that the, as you put it, "general scientific community", has not yet accepted as Final any determination of or on Dark Matter.

 

The bigger question is:

1. We do not know the properties of Dark Matter, except that it interacts with Baryonic Matter Gravitationally.
2. We do not know the formation process of the Dark matter.
3. We do not know what happened to Dark Matter during BB and during inflation.
4. We have not observed it.
5. Our experiment to detect is also failed.

Is it science ? Can science work on such adhoc fudge factors ? Can we claim this to be a scientific theory or even the hypothesis when we know nothing scientific about Dark Matter ?

I will give you an example...X-Ray.....some kind of verifiable and repeatble radiation / ray was observed (repeat observed) by Rontgen while he was working with CRT, he could not explain it, so he called X-Ray, and later on it was identified and established. He could have called X-Ray at that time as Dark Ray. But in that case 'Dark' would have meant observed yet unknown, not fudged. In case of Dark Matter...the 'Dark' means fudged, unverifiable, unobserved, failed experiment. Carry on, Paddoboy, Carry on with your copy pastes,w hich are even otherwise accessible to all.

 

Then how do YOU explain the verified observations that Dark Matter's existence was theorised to explain?

 

Sure my friend! No probs! [Although I do believe most reasonably thinking and observable members already know]
There are many incidents of apparent postings in science of non mainstream ideas as fact, by amateurs and those that have agendas such as religious and such, and obviously suffering the malady called delusions of grandeur.
Thankfully, most have been moved to the alternative section, free thoughts, pseudoscience and in some cases, cesspool.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

There is one paramount question: That is what is the true nature of DM...all of it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

BH's were once rejected by Einstein, even though a solution of GR.
We now have them as confirmed as we would hope any theory can be.
You seem to fanatically continually, keep ignoring the true picture, and post unsupported inferences and ideas. DM was in its inception, a fudge factor. Astronomers are not ashamed of that fact. It was needed to explain the anomalous rotational curves of galaxies, and gravitational lensing in part.
The part you keep ignoring is the evidence gathered since to support the concept.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

X factor and dark refer to the same thing in both incidents....unknown, still a mystery, in fact the example you give actually supports the DM scenario.
I'll offer another X factor...the CC of Einstein fame...another original fudge factor, but now not so much.
Compare if you like these fudge factors with hypothetical speculative ideas. That's how theories start off...that's how science and the scientific method works. I thought by now you would have realised that.

I certainly will...thank you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

...ad hominems...