Anti-Dark Matter

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by joepistole, Nov 18, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,583
    Well then this ought to push it right over the edge: http://news.discovery.com/space/space-bursts-insight-to-theory-of-everything-121209.html


    Violating symmetry

    Superstring theory scientists predict that if particles and anti-particles (antimatter is an opposite form of normal matter) traded places and time was reversed, the world would still look the same. If any evidence is uncovered that matter and antimatter actually act differently, or violate their apparent symmetry, it could offer support for superstring theory.

    "If it were proven to be violated by any physical process, even at some tiny level, then this would radically change the direction of current theoretical approaches to constructing a unified model of all the forces of nature," Fox said.

    Collecting observational evidence can prove challenging, as many quantum structures are too small to probe with present-day technology on Earth, making a space-based probe a necessity.

    Photons streaming from gamma-ray bursts have thus far shown no changes in the rotation of their polarity. Such a rotation would indicate a lack of symmetry if time were reversed and particles and anti-particles switched.

    Studying three gamma-ray bursts with significantly more precision than ever before, Toma and his team found no change in the polarization of the photons, implying that the symmetry is consistent to at least one part in 10 million. This is a new record in constraining the rules that govern nature, and will influence attempts to create a unified theory.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Push what over the edge?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    PhysBang, are you aware that the HST Deep Field Imaging has cumulative exposure periods up to six months in duration?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Are you aware that you are failing to answer any questions? Is this active deception on your part, simple absent-mindedness, or incompetence?

    Please, if you can, provide us with an account of how these "spiral paths" of yours have any significance on any actual observations.
     
  8. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Maybe you have to be a mind reader? Then again there would have to be a mind to read.
     
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2012
  9. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    Physbang, there are several ways this spiral path will impact actual observations.

    (1)Differences between the glancing incidence lens structures used in x-ray astronomy and the lenses used in optical astronomy.

    There was an article in the New Scientist (that I cannot find) around 10 years ago that referred to two images of the same galaxy field, one optical and one x-ray. There were substantially less spiral galaxies in the x-ray images when compared with the optical images. The glancing incidence lens is a tapering spiral slit that optimally covers up to 60% of the surface area and this does not equate to the differences in the spiral galaxy counts. It appears that x-ray images of spiral galaxies will not be collected if the diameter of galactic rotation of the source is not fully within the slit. This coincides with the fact that there has never been published an unaltered (or cropped) astronomical image of just half a spiral galaxy alone.

    (2) Depth Of Field and HST enhancements

    Unmodified Ultra Deep field imaging only display the objects at the beginning of the DOF in any clarity while the remaining light comes through very cloudy. By enhancing these DOF images you risk pulling in the light from rotating sources that were emitting at the end of the DOF but were not emitting at the beginning of the DOF. If you ever try to match up these loose ends properly you will need to have a very good understanding of where the spiral light path being emitted from a rotating source appears within the depth of field of the observation, enhanced or otherwise. If you want a rough guage of the minimum size of the DOF of an image look at an image of a spiral galaxy a similar size to the milky way. If you can see the full width as well as the depth in the image and it retains its circular/oval shape, then the DOF is at least as long as the width of the spiral galaxies you are observing.

    Give up the bullying abuse please Brucep, I will not partake in your trolling.
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Where are the numbers? You have a wild hypothesis about systematic error, but no demonstration of the degree of this error. Please show at least one case where this error is significant to results.
     
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    Your just talking nonsense. If you think it's not nonsense then write up the details and submit it for review. You haven't made a point? My guess is you think the astronomers and astrophysicist don't understand how their equipment works and are underestimating the amount of baryonic matter by amounts that would account for dark matter? You're saying the science teams for all the experiments I listed don't know what they're doing but you do?
     
  12. LaurieAG Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    265
    If you don't even acknowledge any errors then you cannot even begin to understand how it may impact on your calculations. The ratios A, B and C will hilight these errors especially if you mix averages with discrete measurements.

    It just goes back to if you see a point or a circle when you capture an image of a sparkler being rotated in a circle. If you cannot conceive this circle you cannot see its impact.

    So do you perceive a circle, PhysBang and Brucep, or do you perceive a point?
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    As brucep said, you are saying that all the scientists ever working on these subjects have made a simple geometric mistake. All of them.

    I have an alternative hypothesis: you don't know how to do any scientific applications or observations, so you are missing the fact that the problem that you are pointing to is negligible in any application or observation.

    So, please, show us the magnitude of this mistake.
     
  14. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    They haven't made an error so they don't need to acknowledge error. As PhyBang has pointed out many times, you need to quantify the error that you think they make. Unfounded assertions are irrelevant.
     
  15. prometheus viva voce! Moderator

    Messages:
    2,045
    And with that we're done.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page