Search for Dark Matter

Pinball1970

Valued Senior Member
T.I.L. LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) looking for Dark matter.

Results (280 days worth of data) presented in conferences this month.

article here https://phys.org/news/2024-08-dark.html

From the article: "LZ uses 10 tons of liquid xenon to provide a dense, transparent material for dark matter particles to potentially bump into. The hope is for a WIMP to knock into a xenon nucleus, causing it to move, much like a hit from a cue ball in a game of pool. By collecting the light and electrons emitted during interactions, LZ captures potential WIMP signals alongside other data."
 
It might be turn out to be illusive. Jury is out on that at the moment. :)
 
e·lu·sive
/əˈlo͞osiv/
adjective

  1. difficult to find, catch, or achieve.
Yes. That is what I think they meant. The solution to DM is difficult to find, catch or achieve.

But I can't deny that illusive also works:

illusive: having the nature of something unreal or deceptive.
 
Has anyone ever tried to reverse the idea that the space between galaxies is expanding, by assuming that it is instead the distance between particles that is contracting? This explains the acceleration of the redshift, and I think it also explains the anomaly in the rotation speed of galaxies.
 
Has anyone ever tried to reverse the idea that the space between galaxies is expanding, by assuming that it is instead the distance between particles that is contracting? This explains the acceleration of the redshift, and I think it also explains the anomaly in the rotation speed of galaxies.
Makes no sense. The expansion has been measured. No shrinkage found. Not even close to explaining anything.
 
Has anyone ever tried to reverse the idea that the space between galaxies is expanding, by assuming that it is instead the distance between particles that is contracting? This explains the acceleration of the redshift, and I think it also explains the anomaly in the rotation speed of galaxies.
Yes, this has been thought of. It falls apart for the same reason many such ideas do:
  • there are no observations that suggest this idea is explanatory,
  • it has no mathematical or theoretical basis,
  • it poses more questions than it answers,
  • it makes no predictions we can test - i.e. even if it were true, how could we tell?
 
Hi Dave,

If contraction existed, we would see the galaxies as they were when they emitted their light, thus larger than they are now, and the particles they are made up would also look larger and thus carry a longer wavelength, so it seems to explain the redshift, and the farther the galaxies would be, the more the redshift would be important, which could explain its acceleration if contraction itself would be an acceleration, and contraction could be an acceleration if it was linked to the acceleration of gravitation.

Unexpectedly, contraction also seems to explain dark matter, and for the same reason, which is that the stars would see the core of their galaxy as it was when it emitted its light, thus larger and also more attractive than it is now since larger also means closer, so they would have to orbit at a faster speed than what we expect them to. We do indeed expect the dimensions of different parts of the galaxies to be the same as those we see from Earth, but if the galaxies are contracting, what we see is not what the stars see. While the stars would see the core at a time when it was much larger because its light took time to reach them, we would see the stars and the core at the same time since their light took the same time to reach us. Indeed, to measure the speed of stars using the Doppler effect, we only observe those whose line of sight relative to the core is perpendicular to our own line of sight, those that are directly moving towards or away from us, and that are therefore practically at the same distance from us as their core.

I looked for a way to test this possibility, and finally, it's hard to find a better way than those two anomalies. The contraction of gravitational systems would produce real movements - the earth for instance would really be contracting in the direction of the sun while orbiting it - and this
is exactly what we see when we look at pictures of spiral galaxies, we see a movement spiraling towards the core similar to that of water spiraling down the drain. This motion would tend to cancel out the redshift - and the aberration - caused by the contraction, which would cause gravitation, but there would still have to be a residual effect otherwise there would be no gravitation, and it is this residual effect that we would measure when we observe galaxies; it is this residual effect that would bind us gravitationally to them.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dave,

If contraction existed, we would see the galaxies as they were when they emitted their light, thus larger than they are now, and the particles they are made up would also look larger and thus carry a longer wavelength,
Explain this. How does a "larger particle" equate to a longer wavelength?
Or better yet, how does contraction of space result in smaller particles?

Are we talking photons? Atoms? How do these things shrink?


so it seems to explain the redshift, and the farther the galaxies would be, the more the redshift would be important, which could explain its acceleration if contraction itself would be an acceleration, and contraction could be an acceleration if it was linked to the acceleration of gravitation.

Unexpectedly, contraction also seems to explain dark matter, and for the same reason, which is that the stars would see the core of their galaxy as it was when it emitted its light, thus larger and also more attractive than it is now since larger also means closer,
How does larger mean closer? i thought they were larger because they were more spatially extended, so no more mass - and in fact, less attraction (inverse square law of gravity)
 
To me, contraction means contraction of space, as in "contraction of the space between galaxies" for instance instead of "expansion". The difference with expansion is that if the particles are contracting, then things made of particles are contracting too, and it's the light emitted by the particles that guides them, so it must not contract. When we look at the sun, we would see it as it was eight minutes ago, so larger than it is now, and its light would have a longer wavelength - or slower frequency if you prefer - so the earth would have to move towards the sun to increase the apparent frequency of its particles by doppler effect, which would cause gravitation. The general idea is that particles would move to stay synchronized and they would use the light they exchange to do so. If they would perceive blueshift, they would move away from the source to nullify the blueshift by doppler effect, and if they would perceive redshift, they would move towards the source to nullify it by doppler effect too. Of course, they couldn't nullify the contraction completely even if they were adjacent to one another, like two atoms of the same molecule for instance.

I'm not sure I'm large enough to look closer though, if I may say. :0)
 
Back
Top