Jump to content
BeAChooser

Dark Matter Even More Missing Now ...

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

This is not, by any chance, related to these folks?

Yes, what I describe in this thread would fit within the overall umbrella called the "electric universe" although there are lots of theories espoused by that *group* that I don't subscribe to ... which is why I prefer the term Plasma Cosmology, the one espoused by Birkeland, Alfven and Lerner.   I also prefer this link: https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/ and it's forum where you will discussions about EU/PC cosmology and even find some posts by me under the same screen name (or are we now supposed to call that "display name") that I use here.   Does that invalidate anything I've noted on this thread in your mind?  If so, could you perhaps be more specific about what troubles you in what I've posted here?

3 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

You probably have a degree in physics, perhaps even an advanced degree. At any rate, you probably have far more knowledge of physics than the rest of us do.

This means you're entitled to an opinion on questions like the reality, or otherwise, of Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, String Theory, etc.

But almost everyone else here, including me, doesn't know enough physics and mathematics to be able to have an opinion.

I have an a degree in engineering and in that context was exposed to a lot of physics.  But most of what I talk about in this thread is just common sense and if you have that then you are indeed qualified to form an opinion about what's been going on in mainstream physics/astronomy.   Just as you can be qualified to form an opinion about AGW.     It's just understanding that the root of good science is observation, not magical gnomes and bizarre math that no amount of observations seem able to verify.   I would ask if you've taken the time to read through this thread.  In it I have several discussions on "science" in general and why modern astrophysicists are not practicing that but instead are acting like the priests of a religious cult.   

3 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

So I suspect most people, like me, remain agnostics on these issues, or, if we're pushed, defer to the consensus among physicists, which rejects the 'plasma universe' theory in favor of gravity as the main force shaping the evolution of the universe.

Then I think you, like most people, are being foolish, because it's not their billions of dollars that those physicists are spending in pursuit of gnomes.  They are your dollars.  And I've explained over and over in this thread why most physicists reject the 'plasma universe'.   Not because it's been proven wrong.   It hasn't.   Not because their theory has been proven right.   It hasn't.   But because PC threatens that massive funding they've grown used to and the prestige they've been annointed with for being the high priests of a cult.    As proven in the Thunderbolts forum by many posters, the problem is that the mainstream will not debate the topic honestly.   They behave just like AGWalarmist scientists do, when all is said and done.

And this matters because it's not just the money that the astrophysicists themselves are wasting.  They are causing others to waste money, too.   For example they are causing us to misallocate huge amounts of resources because they've gone along with AGWalarmists and their CO2 bogeyman rather than offer a more careful and comprehensive analysis of influence of the sun on climate and warming.  They are also precious wasting time and opportunity.   Their dead end projects are setting back the progress of real science ... setting back our understanding of nature and that will have severe consequences down the road for mankind because we have many problems which need solutions now ... solutions that can only come from applying real science.   If the universe is inherently electric , then not dealing with it electrically can do nothing but lead to disaster.

3 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Anyone reading this, who will be by definition interested in outside-the-mainstream physics, should read Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics if you haven't already.

I have read it.    And I told others about it even though Smolin, like most, thought (thinks?) all is well in the Big Bang world … thinks astrophysicists are doing physics the way it "should be done".  But by reading his book, one can see him lay out nearly the same arguments against the particle physics community that Eric Lerner laid out against the Big Bang astrophysics community nearly two decades earlier in his book “The Big Bang Never Happened”.   Have you read that one, Doug?    What’s going on here is utterly fascinating and disturbing because the two disciplines (astrophysics and partial physics) are now tied hand in hand, so intertwined that if one is wrong the other will probably fall like a house of cards too. Or at least require some major body work.   If one is delaying progress in science, it’s delaying the other field as well.   Lee Smolins made an interesting observation in his book … that in the last 30 years or so, physics has not produced any fundamental theory that has actually had any real world consequence. For the first time in the history of science. All the wonderful technology we see daily improving our lives comes from physics laid down before the time that Big Bang cosmology, modern particle physics and string theory got such a grip on what research is funded and who gets the expensive toys. Perhaps a reason for that is that we are now on a wrong path, one that is leading us away from actual reality. Perhaps that's a symptom of a serious problem, Doug?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here's the problem.  My knowledge of physics, and of the mathematics necessary to understand modern physics (quantum theory and general relativity), is totally inadequate to evaluate rival theories in the way they should be evaluated.  So if your side says "It's obvious that mainstream physics is totally wrong ...." and the other side says, "No, YOU are wrong because of ..." I won't be able to make an informed judgement.  [My criterion here is this: suppose I didn't know which side was mainstream and which side was not, and had to just judge the raw pure arguments. I couldn't do it.] 

There are very intelligent people, with doctorates in physics and chemistry, who are also cranks, or really far out from the mainstream in their field  (I'm not saying here that you are one,  or that the people you are supporting are -- they obviously are not.) When I have read their scientific stuff -- say, on the supposed dangers of GMO, or depleted uranium used as tank-buster munitions, or 'zero-point energy' or cold fusion  -- on my own, I could not refute it. I'm not a specialist in any of these fields.

So I go with the consensus of people who are, although with always some residual skepticism and a certain contrarian hope that the mainstream will be upended, the way Einstein blew apart classical Newtonian physics. You say that these people are just protecting their research grant stream, but I don't think that is adequate to explain the consensus. I just don't believe most physical scientists would propound theories that are obviously false, just for monetary gain.

My deference to Established Authority is only so for the hard sciences, plus some specialized areas like linguistics.

On the 'soft' so-called sciences/disciplines, the social sciences and history and psychology and education and economics, this doesn't apply. These areas are so mixed up with questions of value, and of material interest, that we have to keep our hands on our wallets when listening to their pronouncements. Here I, and any other reasonably intelligent person, can compare our own personal experience to test the claims of social scientists and allied academics.

So when Jo Boaler, a Professor of Mathematics at Stanford, and a very strident Left winger, says that children don't have to learn their times tables ... I just laugh. 

When author after author pens papers in Columbia University's Teachers' College Record arguing that it's "racist" and "classist" to believe that poor children from inner-city ghettos have a 'cultural deficit' ... again, I just laugh.  

When I read Chomsky or Zinn, I know enough real history to reject the tendentious one-sided anti-American bs in their writings. (Not all of their stuff is bs, by the way.)

The same for a lot of political papers from leftist sociologists (are there any other kind?) and psychologists. They obviously have pre-determined political conclusions and are just looking for evidence to support their views. (It's wonderful to watch the psychologists thrown into confusion by their inability to replicate their findings.) And as for the ridiculous post-modernists ...

But in physics and chemistry and mathematics, although I know more than the average person, I certainly don't know enough to choose among alternative theories. So I tend to defer to Authority unless I have to choose [so I'm a Bayesian, for example, in statistics].

However, I do believe this: as the Russians say, You Can't Fool Life. (Most Leftist theorizing is an attempt to do just that.) If current theories of cosmology are wrong, then they will eventually be overturned. 

By the way, I'm glad to see someone posting serious material here. I haven't read carefully through your posts (not enough time) but I will. (At the moment, my not-for-entertainment and not-for-professional-updating reading is the late Thomas Phipps' Old Physics for New, but it's very slow going.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Well, here's the problem.  My knowledge of physics, and of the mathematics necessary to understand modern physics (quantum theory and general relativity), is totally inadequate to evaluate rival theories in the way they should be evaluated.  So if your side says "It's obvious that mainstream physics is totally wrong ...." and the other side says, "No, YOU are wrong because of ..." I won't be able to make an informed judgement.  

Then perhaps you should offer no opinions at all on the topic for now, Doug.   Because an uninformed opinion has no real value.  It only muddies the water.

 

15 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

So I go with the consensus of people who are, although with always some residual skepticism and a certain contrarian hope that the mainstream will be upended, the way Einstein blew apart classical Newtonian physics. You say that these people are just protecting their research grant stream, but I don't think that is adequate to explain the consensus. I just don't believe most physical scientists would propound theories that are obviously false, just for monetary gain.

I've provided many very sound reasons in this thread to doubt this so-called *consensus* astrophysics.   I suggest you read the thread before commenting further.  Because waving a flag of ignorance and then jumping on board the mainstream's position only puts you in danger of not ever doing so.  Further, researchers have found that most people, once they take a position on a topic, right or wrong, will not change from that position no matter what is offered in the way of challenge.   They become invested in their opinion and feel the need to defend it ... and they will then defend it in ways that aren't very logical.   We see leftists do that on this forum all the time.     It's a human *defect* that's well known.   Now in this thread I've offered plenty of examples of the unwillingness of the *consensus* to even engage in an honest debate about astrophysics and cosmology.   Would you like to see an example of this behavior?  Here (http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=16771 ) from today's Thunderbolt's Forum is a good one.    This is what the EU/PC community faces every day, Doug.   It's the same sort of problem that the skeptics of AGW have faced for decades.    And you see where that has now led.

 

15 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

My deference to Established Authority is only so for the hard sciences, plus some specialized areas like linguistics.

You're not defending "hard science" here, Doug ... you're defending GNOMES.    There is nothing "hard" about Big Bang, Black Holes, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Frozen Magnetic Fields, Magnetic Reconnection, and on and on and on.    There is absolutely no proof of their existence or correctness ... not even after 70 years of looking.   And there is much proof that they are simple wrong.    And that's a fact as I've demonstrated in this thread countless times.    Additionally, almost every single day the mainstream *consensus* community expresses new "surprise" at what they've just observed.   Often, it concerns observations of phenomena that the PC/EU community predicted.    And almost every single day the mainstream has to revise their pantheon of gnomes yet again to order to fit these new observations or discoveries.   And these revisions almost always involve introducing new gnomes.   What they are doing isn't science, Doug.   It's religion.   It's epicycles on epicycles.   This has been demonstrated over and over in this thread to the sound of crickets from mainstream supporters.

 

15 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

On the 'soft' so-called sciences/disciplines, the social sciences and history and psychology and education and economics, this doesn't apply. These areas are so mixed up with questions of value, and of material interest, that we have to keep our hands on our wallets when listening to their pronouncements. Here I, and any other reasonably intelligent person, can compare our own personal experience to test the claims of social scientists and allied academics.

So when Jo Boaler, a Professor of Mathematics at Stanford, and a very strident Left winger, says that children don't have to learn their times tables ... I just laugh. 

When author after author pens papers in Columbia University's Teachers' College Record arguing that it's "racist" and "classist" to believe that poor children from inner-city ghettos have a 'cultural deficit' ... again, I just laugh.  

When I read Chomsky or Zinn, I know enough real history to reject the tendentious one-sided anti-American bs in their writings. (Not all of their stuff is bs, by the way.)

The same for a lot of political papers from leftist sociologists (are there any other kind?) and psychologists. They obviously have pre-determined political conclusions and are just looking for evidence to support their views. (It's wonderful to watch the psychologists thrown into confusion by their inability to replicate their findings.) And as for the ridiculous post-modernists ...

But in physics and chemistry and mathematics, although I know more than the average person, I certainly don't know enough to choose among alternative theories. So I tend to defer to Authority unless I have to choose [so I'm a Bayesian, for example, in statistics].

Come on, Doug.   You don't need anything more than common sense to know that what's occurring in astrophysics and cosmology isn't good science.  

 

For the same reason, you don't need a masters in climatology to see that AGWhysteria is bogus and is driven by something other than good science.

 

15 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

If current theories of cosmology are wrong, then they will eventually be overturned. 

True, but it might take a long time if the mainstream can silence the opposition, as the examples in this thread and that I provided above demonstrate they are doing.   Look how long it has taken to even slow down the AGWalarmism agenda given the control the *consensus* has established in the government, media, educational institutions, science publishers, and research organizations.  The PC/EU community faces no less a challenge at this point.    And the longer it takes to overturn the dogma of the mainstream, the worse the crash that will follow.  As I pointed out earlier, the coming crash easily destroy the public's willingness to spend any further money on particle physics, astrophysics and cosmology.   This would leave us trapped in the construct that the mainstream created with no way to get into the correct reality any time soon.     It would cripple these very necessary (at least the first two) sciences.   And that would have a profound and detrimental impact on mankind's prospects for solving many problems we now face.   You might view the problem with continuing as we are as our society eating the seed corn.   If we continue down this road to exhaustion, we may get to the point that there will be no money available to start over.  And this might be the end result ...

Armageddon%2Baftermath.jpg

And I don't think I'm being overly dramatic at this point because people are losing faith in institutions and if they lose faith in the value of science ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Then perhaps you should offer no opinions at all on the topic for now, Doug.   Because an uninformed opinion has no real value.  It only muddies the water.

I haven't offered an opinion on which theory of cosmology is correct. To tell the truth, I don't pay much attention to cosmology -- at our present stage of technology it's too hard to frame disconfirming experiments.  I've explained why, if I'm pushed,  I defer to the consensus of people who are qualified to have an opinion, who happen to disagree with you.  (And weren't you complaining that no one was responding to this thread? i was explaining why the normally loquacious and disputative crowd here absented themselves.)

By posting here, you're inviting the rest of us, who are not scientifically trained to the level of having a first-order opinion, to take a stand. In effect, you're saying, "Trust me." Since we can't follow the science, you've said, the majority of cosmologists are corrupt: they know they're wrong, but just want the money. That is something I am qualified to judge because that isn't a question of physics, but of what kind of people physicists are -- I know a few and don't accept that they're corrupt.

I expect that you, for example, are as ignorant of oncology as I am. But if you get cancer, I'll bet you will stick with the great majority of specialists in this field, and fight it, under the supervision of one of them, with X-Rays, Chemicals, and Surgery, as opposed to the woo-woo New Age nonsense of diet, visualization, herbs, meditation, etc. (Following the latter may have been what killed Steve Jobs.)  Of course the New Age mystics say that the practitioners of orthodox medicine are corrupt -- they've been bought off by Big Pharma, etc.  

I think it's a good thing that you posted this, by the way. It brought something to the attention of people who care about science that we, or at least I, didn't know about. (But then, as I said, I've never taken cosmology as seriously as I take other areas of physics, precisely because it's so speculative.)

It's what we all do in areas where we are not expert, but where there is good reason to trust that the experts are, if we have to choose, right, or as close to 'right' as it's possible to get at the moment.  (Incidentally -- you probably know all about this -- someone who is very well known and respected among the pro-Global Warming community has just blotted her copybook by repeating the hippie nonsense about Genetically Modified Organisms (another favorite bug-bear of the science-illiterate Snowflake Left. Soon she'll probably come out against Nuclear Power).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

I haven't offered an opinion on which theory of cosmology is correct.

Actually, you have.  You said "I go with the consensus."

 

7 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

 In effect, you're saying, "Trust me."

Wrong.   I've offered a thread full of sourced facts and clear logic pointing to problems with the mainstream's gnomes.  And I've offered a mountain of material showing how PC/EU theories explain what the mainstream does not.    I'm not asking for your trust, Doug ... I'm asking you to apply a modicum of common sense.   To read my thread before reaching a conclusion.

 

7 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

Since we can't follow the science, you've said, the majority of cosmologists are corrupt: they know they're wrong, but just want the money. That is something I am qualified to judge because that isn't a question of physics, but of what kind of people physicists are -- I know a few and don't accept that they're corrupt.

Wrong again.  That is not the reason I gave for mainstream cosmologists being corrupt.  I'd appreciate if you'd at least make an effort to state my views correctly.   And if you think physicists lie outside the real world with it's real world influences ... like wanting to live in a big home, go on expensive vacations, and put kids through expensive colleges, you don't live in reality either.    If you think physicists or scientists in general have no egos, aren't subject to politics at the office, and play no politics in furthering their own careers, you don't know physicists at all.   I suggest you go back and look at the experience that Nobel Prize winner Hannes Alfven had with the mainstream physics/scientific community.   His major opponents egos and "political" control were so big that they literally had to die off before what Alfven proposed was accepted as correct and he got his Nobel .  And although today's modern physicists will cite Alfven's theories, they have, according to Alfven himself, utterly misinterpreted those theories in their desperation to defend their gnomes.

 

7 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

I expect that you, for example, are as ignorant of oncology as I am. But if you get cancer, I'll bet you will stick with the great majority of specialists in this field, and fight it, under the supervision of one of them, with X-Rays, Chemicals, and Surgery, as opposed to the woo-woo New Age nonsense of diet, visualization, herbs, meditation, etc. (Following the latter may have been what killed Steve Jobs.)  Of course the New Age mystics say that the practitioners of orthodox medicine are corrupt -- they've been bought off by Big Pharma, etc.  

Again I ask that you read the thread and dispute what I've posted if you don't agree with what I've concluded.  

Don't employ this diversion ... this appeal to authority ... which is itself a recognized error in logic.

 

7 hours ago, Doug1943 said:

I think it's a good thing that you posted this, by the way. It brought something to the attention of people who care about science that we, or at least I, didn't know about.

 

I'm happy to hear that since that is my intent by doing this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my …

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-pompom-stars-quasar-puzzle.html

 


Gas filaments surrounding stars like the strands of a pompom may be the answer to a 30-year old mystery: why quasars twinkle.

Dr Mark Walker (Manly Astrophysics) and collaborators at Caltech, Manly Astrophysics and CSIRO (the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) published this solution today in the Astrophysical Journal.

… snip …

Quasar radio twinkling was recognized in the 1980s. Most often it is gentle – small, slow changes in radio brightness. Violent twinkling is rare and unpredictable.

Stars in the night sky twinkle when currents of air in our atmosphere focus and defocus their light. In the same way, quasars twinkle when streams of warm gas in interstellar space focus and defocus their radio signals.

But until now it was a mystery what those streams were and where they lay.

The first sign that stars are involved came when the team prepared to look at their twinkling quasar, PKS 1322–110, with one of the 10-m Keck optical telescopes in Hawai'i.

"At that point we realised this quasar is very close on the sky to the hot star Spica," co-author Dr Vikram Ravi (Caltech) said.

Walker remembered that another violently twinkling quasar, J1819+3845, is close on the sky to the hot star Vega – something previously noted by other researchers. Two hot stars, two twinkling quasars: is this just a coincidence?

Further work suggested it's not.

Walker's team re-examined earlier data on J1819+3845 and another violent twinkler, PKS 1257–326. They found that this second quasar lies close on the sky to a hot star called Alhakim.

The chance of having both twinkling quasars near hot stars is one in ten million, the researchers calculated.

"We have very detailed observations of these two sources," co-author Dr Hayley Bignall (CSIRO) said. "They show that the twinkling is caused by long, thin structures."

The team suggests that every hot star is surrounded by a throng of warm gas filaments, all pointing towards it.

"We think these stars look like the Helix Nebula," Walker said.

In the Helix a star sits in a swarm of cool globules of molecular hydrogen gas, each about as big as our solar system. Ultraviolet radiation from the star blasts the globules, giving each one a skin of warm gas and a long gas tail flowing outwards.

 

Oh my … of course, what they mean by “gas” is “plasma”.

 

And this has implications …

 

http://aasnova.org/2017/07/19/nearby-hot-stars-may-change-our-view-of-distant-sources/

 


By modeling the systems of the sources and stars, the authors show that the size, location, orientation, and numbers of plasma concentrations necessary to explain observations are all consistent with an environment similar to that of the Helix Nebula. Walker and collaborators find that the total mass in the molecular clumps surrounding the two stars would need to be comparable to the mass of the stars themselves.

If this picture is correct, and if all stars are indeed surrounded by molecular clumps like these, then a substantial fraction of the mass of our galaxy could be contained in these clumps. Besides explaining distant quasar scintillation, this idea would therefore have a significant impact on our overall understanding of how mass in galaxies is distributed. More observations of twinkling quasars are the next step toward confirming this picture.

 

So …  once again, it turns out that plasma is the answer to a puzzling observation and there’s far more plasma than the mainstream thought, making the need for Dark Matter even less.  

 

:o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where has all the light in the universe gone?

 

Astrophysicists mystified after noticing 80 per cent of the light in the universe appears to be missing

 

The universe is a pretty dark place – but according to astrophysicists it is much too dark.

 

Scientists have been left scratching their heads after noticing there is a huge deficit of light.

Well, if light travels at the speed of light.  And, if the universe is expanding.  And, if the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate - why is this so puzzling to Astrophysicists?  I would think that number is about right, as most light would be moving toward the boundary of an expanding universe, it would not be observable by Astrophysicists peering at the universe from Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From about two months ago …

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-cosmic-inflation-higgs-goodbye-brother.html

 


Cosmic inflation: Higgs says goodbye to his 'little brother'

In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe expanded many billions of times faster than today. Such rapid expansion is likely due to a primordial force field acting with a new particle, the inflaton. From the latest analysis of the decay of mesons carried out in the LHCb experiment by physicists from Cracow and Zurich, it appears, however, that the most probable light inflaton, a particle with the characteristics of the famous Higgs boson but less massive, almost certainly does not exist.

Just after the Big Bang, the universe probably experienced an extreme burst of expansion. If inflation did occur, there should be a new force behind it. Its force carriers are theorized to be hitherto unobserved inflatons, which should have many features reminiscent of the famous Higgs boson. Physicists from the Institute of Nuclear Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences (IFJ PAN) in Cracow and the University of Zurich (UZH) searched for traces of light inflatons in the decay of B+ mesons recorded by detectors in the LHCb experiment at CERN near Geneva. Detailed analysis of the data, however, casts doubt on the existence of light inflatons.

 

Now inflation is stuck between “probably” and “if”.

 


Despite its weak effects, gravity influences the appearance of the universe at the greatest scales. As a consequence, all modern cosmological models are based on the best theory of gravity, Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. 

 

LIARS.  

 

PC/EU is not and it’s just as “modern” as the mainstream cosmology.

 


The first cosmological models constructed on the relativity suggest that the universe was a dynamic creation. Today, we know that it was once extremely dense and hot, and 13.8 billion years ago, it began rapid expansion.

 

NO, we don’t "know".   

 

This article just got done admitting that inflation is not a certainty at all.

 

And that the latest search to find a particle to explain is has been a BUST.

 


"The primary evidence of these events is the microwave background radiation that formed a few hundred thousand years after the Big Bang. It currently corresponds to a temperature of about 2.7 kelvins and uniformly fills the entire universe. It is this homogeneity that has proved to be a great puzzle," says Dr. Marcin Chrzaszcz (IFJ PAN), and explains, "When we look into the sky, the deep space fragments visible in one direction may be so distant from those visible in another direction that light has not yet had time to pass between them. So nothing that has happened in one of these areas should affect the other. But wherever we look, the temperature of distant regions of the cosmos is almost identical. How could it have become so uniform?"

 

Plasma Cosmologists predicted a temperature of about 2.7 kelvin BEFORE the Big Bang cosmology finally got around to coming up with that number.   PC has no problem with the temperature being the same in every direction as far as the eye can see.   This is only a problem for Big Bang.   And Big Bang needs inflation.   So if inflation is now an “if”, so is Big Bang.

 


The uniformity of microwave background radiation is explained by the mechanism proposed by Alan Guth in 1981. In his model, the universe initially expanded slowly, and all points observed today had time to interact and level out the temperature. According to Guth, at some point, however, there must have been a very short but extremely rapid expansion of space-time. The new force responsible for this inflation expanded the universe to such an extent that today.   … snip …

"A new field always means the existence of a particle that is the carrier of the effect. Cosmology has thus become interesting for physicists examining phenomena at the microscale. For a long time, a good candidate for the inflaton appeared to be the famous Higgs boson. But in 2012, the Higgs was finally observed in the European LHC accelerator, and turned out to be too heavy. If Higgs, with its mass, was responsible for inflation, today's relict radiation would look different than what is currently observed by the COBE, WMAP and Planck satellites," says Dr. Chrzaszcz.

Theoreticians proposed a solution to this surprising situation: The inflaton might be a completely new particle with the properties of Higgs, but with a smaller mass. 

… snip …

In our analysis, we were looking for decays of up to 99 percent of the possible values of this parameter—and we found nothing. We can therefore say with great certainty that the light inflaton simply does not exist," says Dr. Chrzaszcz.

Theoretically, low-mass inflatons may still be hidden in 1 percent of the unexamined variations in oscillation. These cases will eventually be excluded by future analyses using newer data that is now being collected at the LHC. However, physicists have to reconcile the idea that if inflatons exist, they are either more massive than previously believed, or they occur in more than one variation.

 

In short, the theory of inflation is now in even more serious trouble.

 

And if that’s not bad enough …

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/05/physicists-cant-agree-science-even-means-anymore/

 


Physicists Can’t Agree on What Science Even Means Anymore

… snip …

Recently, a trio of mainstream physicists accused hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other mainstream physicists of Not Doing Science in a very public forum. Their article, published in February’s Scientific American2, targets the inflationary universe theory, which, during the past 35 years, has come to be what most physicists use to explain the origin (and present state) of the cosmos. By publishing in SciAm, these authors aren’t just asking the vicariously scientific public—you and I—to accept their theory as correct. They are asking us to decide what it means to Do Science.

This whole ordeal goes back to the Big Bang. As in, theory of. It’s not terribly controversial, but it has a few problems. In the early 1980s, physicists were trying to make sense of a particularly vexing one: The Big Bang does not explain why the universe is so flat. Flat, in this sense, doesn’t mean squashed or thin. It means if you zoom really far out and draw a line between any two points, it will be straight—whereas with the Big Bang alone the line would be curved. This is in addition to other observed oddities. For instance, experiments measuring the breadth of the cosmos had shown there was no way the Big Bang was energetic enough to fling the universe so wide, so fast.

Three physicists—Alan Guth of MIT, Andrei Linde of Stanford, and Paul Steinhardt of Princeton—started working on inflation as a potential solution. Their theory posits that a super dense bubble of vacuum energy that super-charged the Big Bang. The universe opened up wide and was essentially a vast, irradiated nothingness, except some regions were ever so slightly more dense than others. These attracted molecules, which formed dust particles, which formed rocks, which attracted gases that got so dense they combusted, wheedled, spun, orbited … you know the rest.

Inflation explained that process so well that it came to dominate mainstream physics. It isn’t a theory, per se—not like the theory of relativity is a theory. It’s more like a thematically connected group of competing hypotheses, what Guth calls an “umbrella.” They share some crucial traits, namely, ripples in the cosmic microwave background radiation. And the hypotheses predict that these traits will conform to certain numerical measurements. Some of these criteria have been met; for instance, in 1998 physicists found proof of dark energy4, which accounted for 70 percent of the missing matter that inflation had predicted. Confirming other criteria has been more elusive.

For years, scientists have been looking for precise measurements of a type of gravitational radiation left over from the Big Bang. One recent experiment looking used a European Space Agency satellite called Planck. And in 2013, scientists interpreting results from Planck said they fit right into one of the inflationary hypotheses.

Eureka? Not according to three other physicists who attended the ESA press conference where the Planck results were announced. They were Avi Loeb, chair of Harvard University’s astronomy department; Anna Ijjas, then a grad student and now a post-doc at Princeton’s Center for Theoretical Science; and Steinhardt, one of the original inflation architects. They felt that the ESA had fit the Planck data to the most convenient inflationary hypothesis. But, crucially, not the simplest. Physics should favor simplicity, and the Planck data actually caused simpler inflationary models to make less sense.

They published a critique of inflation in the journal Physics Letters B—which eventually became the SciAm article—calling out what they saw as errors fitting the Planck data to inflation. They went even further. They pointed out that inflationary energy had never been directly observed, and was therefore hypothetical. Even more vexing to them was the fact that some inflationary models predict the existence of the multiverse, which by definition exists outside this universe’s rules and thus cannot be tested using this universe’s iteration of science.

But inflation’s biggest crime was its flexibility: The authors argue that inflation contains so many hypotheses that you can essentially fit at least one of them around any new data that comes out. In short, inflation can never be disproved. People studying it, therefore, are Not Doing Science.

They had plenty of other, more specific complaints about inflation. You can read about those in SciAm, but they aren’t necessary for you to finish this article. All you need to know is what you probably already suspect: Their accusation dropped like a dollop of potassium in a swimming pool. Four prominent inflationists (Guth, Linde, David Kaiser of MIT, and Yasunori Nomura, the director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Theoretical Physics) wrote a rebuttal defending the science-ness of their theory to the editor of Scientific American. They even went so far as to have it co-signed by nearly 30 other physicists—heavyweights like Stephen Hawking and Rainier Weiss. The original SciAm trio then rebutted the rebuttal with an FAQ about why they are right and the other guys are wrong.

This whole ordeal presents the rest of us with two gifts. The first is nerdy drama—if you really want to get into the details, read this article in UnDark, or this one in The Atlantic.

The second gift is an opportunity to examine what science—the verb, the doing, the process—even is anymore. What these two groups are essentially bickering over is time. To the SciAm trio, inflation has had enough of it. In fact, they say no amount of time would ever give inflationists enough data to confirm one of their hypotheses. More time just gives the inflationists more time to chase their mathematical conjectures onto thinner and thinner limbs. Inflation, they say, is broken. Cut bait, and start looking for some new framework. They even offer their own—the charmingly named Big Bounce.

The pro-inflationists say just need more time. Science takes time. Physics takes a lot of time. These scientists are still working out which hypotheses work, and which don’t. Many theoretical frameworks go through periods like this, in which scientists throw the same data against multiple theories at once, eliminating the bad ones as they go. Usually, it just happens much faster.

All of which is … great. Great because yay, science! But also “great” because it raises the question of how the hell you, the vicariously scientific public, are supposed to decide which pill to swallow. OK, maybe you could go the über-Karl Popper route and side with whoever provides the most empirically grounded research. The downside is that what counts as science will proceed very slowly for you. Or, if you have lots of expendable time and a voracious mind, you can adopt philosophical frameworks like “post-empirical confirmation.” These are just starting points, and both the SciAm trio, and the inflationists are inboard of these respective extremes.

Basically, this is an invitation to think for yourself. Physicists are still figuring all this stuff out—as are most scientists, all the time. You just have to decide how much patience you have for answers … and if the time comes when a theory doesn’t make sense, whether you have the chutzpah to tell several thousand physicists that they aren’t actually doing science.

 

That’s right folks.   It’s time we think for ourselves.   And tell the mainstream physicist community to stop wasting money, time and brain power on gnomes.   And start doing real science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/unlocking-the-secrets--and-possible-uses--of-dark-matter-20170804-gxpv0k.html

 


Unlocking the secrets - and possible uses - of dark matter

Flying cars could be one step closer thanks to a study on dark matter and energy conducted by Australian and international scientists.

The researchers were part of an international team that included 400 scientists across six continents.

(… blah, blah, blah, the usual unsupported babbling claims about DM and DE …)

University of Queensland astrophysics professor Tamara Davis was one of the Australian researchers that contributed to the project.

… snip ….

"When we learn what this stuff is … we might find out we can use it," she said.

"Dark energy seems to have repulsive gravity, so if we can start to learn to control gravity we won't need rockets to get off earth, we can just make it up into space.

"Maybe we can make those hovering cars like in Star Wars." 

 

Good grief.  

 

They are already imagining uses for something they can't find?

 

And she is what passes for astrophysics professors, now days?

   

And this is what passes for science reporting now days?   

 

If you don’t find this troubling, it should.

 

Just saying …

 

By the way, Tamara forgot to mention this part …

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2143103-new-sky-survey-shows-that-dark-energy-may-one-day-tear-us-apart/

 


The fate of the universe just became a little less certain. That’s due to a disagreement between a map of the early universe and a new map of today’s universe. If the mismatch stands the test of future measurements, we might have to rewrite physics.

 

Rewrite physics AGAIN?   Oh no!  Say it isn't so!

 


In 2013, astronomers revealed the results of charting the universe’s dark contents across the early cosmos – 380,000 years after the big bang, to be exact – with the help of the Planck satellite.

… snip …

Comparing the two allows us to piece together how the universe evolved from its early state to the present – and make predictions about the future. Many astronomers believe that dark energy is a constant force and didn’t think these results would change over time. DES’s first findings, however, might suggest otherwise.

Take dark matter, for example. Planck pegged it at 34 per cent of the mass of the early universe, but DES finds that today it only amounts to 26 per cent. That could mean dark matter is losing the cosmic game of tug of war to dark energy – a result that would force a radical rewrite of physics.

“If [the two different answers] don’t go away, we’re seeing the first signs of what could be a very serious problem in the cosmological model,” says David Spergel at Princeton University.

 

LOL!  No, the mainstream will just need a new gnome to make dark matter disappear or convert it into dark energy.   They are soooooo good at inventing gnomes.   

 


The latest mismatch could mean that one or both of the measurements is wrong. If so, it might disappear with more data. Then again, it might not. And the fate of the universe hangs in the balance.

 

In truth, it's science that hangs in the balance.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s Tuesday so it's time for a new Dark Matter gnome …

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-theory-dark.html

 


New theory on the origin of dark matter

Only a small part of the universe consists of visible matter.  By far the largest part is invisible and consists of dark matter and dark energy.

 

Have you noticed how ALL these mainstream articles start out with a claim of CERTAINTY … that DM, DE, blackholes, or whatever exists?  

 

 Very little is known about dark energy, but there are many theories and experiments on the existence of dark matter designed to find these as yet unknown particles.


 

And that then they turn around and immediately admit their actual lack of knowledge about that existance or even the characteristics of the gnomes?   

 

Every single article is like this.

 


Scientists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) in Germany have now come up with a new theory on how dark matter may have been formed shortly after the origin of the universe.   This new model proposes an alternative to the WIMP paradigm that is the subject of various experiments in current research.

 

Next, the article always introduces a new gnome that will in some manner explain the other gnome and tell that reader that there will be *experiments*.  

 

Yes, folks, this new gnome is going to cost YOU money, too.

 


The current assumption is that dark matter is a cosmological relic that has essentially remained stable since its creation. "We have called this assumption into question, showing that at the beginning of the universe dark matter may have been unstable," explained Dr. Michael Baker from the Theoretical High Energy Physics (THEP) group at the JGU Institute of Physics. This instability also indicates the existence of a new mechanism that explains the observed quantity of dark matter in the cosmos.

 

And finally the article gets around to explaining the latest gnome.

 

Or trying to ...

 


The stability of dark matter is usually explained by a symmetry principle. However, in their paper, Dr. Michael Baker and Prof. Joachim Kopp demonstrate that the universe may have gone through a phase during which this symmetry was broken. This would mean that it is possible for the hypothetical dark matter particle to decay. During the electroweak phase transition, the symmetry that stabilizes dark matter would have been re-established, enabling it to continue to exist in the universe to the present day.

 

See?   Now, finally, everything is explained.  

 

This one has something to do with symmetry and anti-matter.    Easy peasy.   Perfectly understandable.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Now all they need are more expensive experiments to validate their new gnome.  

 

Just like they needed costly experiments to prove the existence of the old gnomes.  

 

Never mind that NONE of those experiments ever proved that existence.  

 

But they sure bought the mainstream physics community plenty of prestige, big houses, nice vacations and educations for their lucky kids.

 

Just saying ...:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the latest …

 

https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/science-ticker/results-slew-experiments-are-dark-matter-remains-elusive

 

Quote

 

The results from a slew of experiments are in: Dark matter remains elusive

 

… snip …

 

The PandaX-II experiment, based in China, found no hint of the particles, scientists reported August 23. The XENON1T experiment in Italy also came up WIMPless according to a May 18 paper.  Scientists with the DEAP-3600 experiment in Sudbury, Canada, reported their first results on July 25. Signs of dark matter? Nada. And the SuperCDMS experiment in the Soudan mine in Minnesota likewise found no WIMP hints, scientists reported August 29.

 

Another experiment, PICO-60, also located in Sudbury, reported its contribution to the smorgasbord of negative results June 23 in Physical Review Letters.

 

 

When will they take the hint?

 

Quote

Scientists haven’t given up hope. Researchers are building ever-larger detectors, retooling their experiments and expanding the search beyond WIMPs, in hopes of glimpsing a dark matter particle.

 

Probably never.  Afterall, they want to keep the paychecks coming. 

 

Just saying ...

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really have to laugh a modern astrophysicists.  

 

http://www.newsweek.com/auger-effect-black-hole-models-tested-x-ray-machine-656270

 

Quote

 

Models showing what happens to matter just before it is sucked into a black hole may need to be revised after laboratory experiments using the world’s most powerful X-ray machine contradicted one of our best theories.

 

Black holes are regions of space where the gravitational field is so intense nothing—including light and radiation—can escape. This makes studying them extremely difficult.

However, just before matter is consumed by a black hole, it becomes an “accretion disk”—a structure formed from material orbiting the black hole as it spirals inwards. The disk radiates in the X-ray spectrum and, at present, examining this is one of the best ways for scientists to study black holes.

 

“There's lots of information in spectra. They can have many shapes," said Tim Kallman, an astrophysicist with NASA. “[Black holes have] bumps and wiggles in different parts of the spectra. If you can interpret those bumps and wiggles, you know how much gas, how hot, how ionized and to what extent, and how many different elements are present in the accretion disk."

 

A popular theory about material in the accretion disk is called the Resonant Auger Destruction assumption. It explains the absence of photons coming from the accretion disk—under the immense gravity and radiation of a black hole, energized iron electrons do not drop back down to lower energy states by emitting light in the form of photons.

 

Over the last five years, a team of scientists has been testing the Auger destruction theory using the Z machine at the Sandia National Laboratories, California. The machine allowed them—for the first time—to re-create the X-ray energies that surround black holes and apply them to material, meaning they can better interpret what they see in X-ray spectra collected from black holes.

 

… snip …

 

In the study, the team applied the X-ray energies seen around black holes to small pieces of silicon. This element is abundant in the universe and known to experience the Auger effect, so if the theory is right, it would have been observed in the experiment. But this was not the case.

 

"If Resonant Auger Destruction is a factor, it should have happened in our experiment because we had the same conditions, the same column density, the same temperature," Sardina’s Guillaume Loisel, who led the study, said. "Our results show that if the photons aren't there, the ions must be not there either."

 

He said there are many explanations that will need to be explored before the Auger effect is dismissed entirely, adding that new models are currently being developed to understand accretion disks: “Our research suggests it will be necessary to rework many scientific papers published over the last 20 years. Our results challenge models used to infer how fast black holes swallow matter from their companion star. We are optimistic that astrophysicists will implement whatever changes are found to be needed."

 

 

/gizmodo.com/scientists-bust-up-black-hole-theory-using-worlds-most-1798548047

 

Quote

 

As for what that means to future astronomical observations and scientists’ understanding of black holes, “This work... shows that an assumption which has gone into our atomic models is importantly flawed,” Jack Steiner, an Einstein Postdoctoral Fellow at MIT not involved in the study told Gizmodo in an email. That has important implications. But he also pointed out limitations—after all, these aren’t truly black holes producing the plasma. The black hole’s specific combination of x-rays could also change the result.

 

But Steiner, Matthews and others agreed about the importance of the result. Javier Garcia at Caltech told Gizmodo in an email: “It is truly remarkable that in a laboratory on Earth into plasma opacities, the Sandia Z group are connecting and shedding light on plasma processes in both the Sun and in accretion disks around black holes.

 

 

They express surprise that physics in a lab can shed light on what’s observed out there?

 

They certainly aren’t Sherlocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/india-joins-hunt-dark-matter

 

Quote

 

India joins hunt for dark matter

 

NEW DELHI—Ever since a pioneering underground laboratory in India closed 25 years ago, physicists here have lacked a subterranean lair, shielded from cosmic rays, where they could hunt for elusive particles from the cosmos. Now, their long wait is over: On 2 September, India will inaugurate Jaduguda Underground Science Laboratory 550 meters below the surface in an operating uranium mine.

 

The Jaduguda lab’s primary aim will be to join the hunt for dark matter, the mysterious stuff whose gravity holds galaxies together. “It is a good time for India to apply her best and brightest to this universal mystery,” says Nigel Lockyer, Director of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. Elsewhere the dark matter quest has driven physicists to build ever-deeper labs—Sudbury Neutrino Observatory in Canada, 2.1 kilometers below the surface, is now the deepest—with ever-more-elaborate measures to shield detectors from other particles.

 


Yes indeed, modern astrophysics is a regular snipe hunt.

 

Another group of physicists gets suckered into searching for dark matter.

 

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Time for a new gnome … 

 

… one involving BOTH black holes and dark matter.

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/09/29/first_supermassive_black_holes/

 

Quote

 

Ancient fat black holes created by belching Big Bang's dark matter


Streams of gas slammed into cloud of baffling cosmic material – new theory

 

The largest and oldest supermassive black holes were created from a giant clump of dark matter and gas after the Big Bang, according to a supercomputer simulation.


Supermassive black holes have long been a mystery to the world's eggheads. It’s a puzzle how the gigantic voids over 13 billion light years away – and date back to when the universe was less than a billion years old – grew up to billions of times the mass of the Sun in such a short time.


Previous theories have suggested that they were formed after the first generation of stars fizzled out, or after a huge primordial gas cloud collapsed directly into a black hole. Those theories aren't perfect, though.


A paper published on Thursday in Science describes another method for creating the mega space voids. By assuming more realistic settings and modeling the way gas and dark matter interact with each other, boffins now believe that a massive cloud of dark matter formed when the universe was just 100 million years old.


Passing streams of supersonic gas were caught by the dark matter cloud to generate a dense, turbulent cluster, where a protostar began to take shape. As more gas was trapped, the star swelled to a massive size without releasing radiation.


Naoki Yoshida, co-author of the paper and a researcher at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe, University of Tokyo, Japan, said that once the star reached a whopping 34,000 times the size of our Sun, it collapsed to leave a massive black hole.


These massive black holes, born from giant ancient stars, continued to grow, and merged together to become supermassive black holes.


Shingo Hirano, co-author of the study and an astrophysicist at the University of Austin, Texas, said the simulations showed that “the number density of massive black holes is derived to be approximately one per a volume of three billion light-years on a side – remarkably close to the observed number density of supermassive black holes.”

 

 

Can these folks get any more desperate?

 

It's gas gas gas gas gas gas gas gas …

 

And I especially love the part about "assuming more realistic settings and modeling the way gas and dark matter interact with each other" ...

 

LOL!

 

What a bunch of fools. 

 

Not a one of them should be called a scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good New, Bad News.

 

The Good News is that they’ve confirmed that XENON1T is the most sensitive dark matter detector on Earth.

 

The Bad News is that they haven’t detected any dark matter with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://futurism.com/hubble-discovery-suggests-we-may-need-new-physics-to-explain-dark-matter/
 

Quote

Hubble Discovery Suggests We May Need New Physics to Explain Dark Matter

 

 

Or perhaps what Hubble Discoveries suggest is that mainstream Physicists need to relearn Old Physics to understand why Dark Matter isn’t needed.

 

Just saying ...

 

More on this latest nonsense …

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_evidence_for_dark_matter_makes_it_even_more_exotic_999.html

 

Quote

 

New evidence for dark matter makes it even more exotic

 

Galaxy clusters are the largest known structures in the Universe, containing thousands of galaxies and hot gas. But more importantly, they contain the mysterious dark matter, which accounts for 27 percent of all matter and energy. Current models of dark matter predict that galaxy clusters have very dense cores, and those cores contain a very massive galaxy that never moves from the cluster's center.

 

But after studying ten galaxy clusters, David Harvey at EPFL's Laboratory of Astrophysics and his colleagues in France and the UK have discovered that the density is much smaller than predicted, and that the galaxy at the center actually moves.

 

Every galaxy cluster contains a galaxy that is brighter than the others, aptly named "brightest cluster galaxy" or BCG. Recent evidence from simulations of exotic, non-standard dark matter shows that BCGs actually wobble long after the galaxy cluster has relaxed. This is residual wobbling caused by massive merging of galaxy clusters.

 

The researchers compared their observations to the predictions from the BAHAMAS suite of cosmological hydro-dynamical simulations finding that the two did not match. According to the Standard Model of dark matter (called "cold dark matter"), this wobbling doesn't exist because the enormous density of dark matter keeps it tightly bound at the center of the galaxy cluster. Therefore, this mismatch suggests the existence of yet-unknown physics that have not been accounted for.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/dark-matter-still-missing

 

Quote

 

Dark matter still missing

 

The most sensitive experiments yet have once again failed to find traces of the mysterious substance. Michael Lucy reports.

 

Scientists from two of the world’s biggest dark matter detectors have reported that their latest experiments, like all earlier attempts, have produced no sign of the elusive substance.


In a pair of papers published in Physical Review Letters, researchers from the XENON1T and PandaX-II collaborations have ruled out some theoretical possibilities for dark matter particles and narrowed down the search area for future experiments.

 

… snip …

 

The XENON1T detector, the world’s largest, consists of a tank containing some 2000 kilograms of liquid xenon, itself housed in a 10-metre tall tank of water about 1.4 kilometres below ground at Italy’s Gran Sasso National Laboratory. PandaX-II, located 2.4 kilometres underground at the China Jinping Underground Laboratory in Sichuan, has a similar set-up using 580 kilos of liquid xenon.

 

… snip …

 

While the announcements that the detectors have found no signs of dark matter are somewhat anticlimactic, they let physicists place limits on the probability of collisions with normal matter. These probabilities are expressed in terms of an effective size, or cross section, of the dark matter particles.


The new results have confirmed that these probabilities must be millions of times smaller than even those for neutrinos, which are themselves notoriously difficult to detect.

 

 

You’d think that sooner or later they’d begin to see the obvious … but then all those $$$$$ keep flashing in their eyes.

 

Just saying …
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh oh … word is seeping out …

 

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/05/dark-matter-the-mystery-substance-in-most-of-the-universe_partner/

 

Quote

 

After decades of measurements and debate, we are now confident that the overwhelming majority of our universe’s matter – about 84 percent – is not made up of atoms, or of any other known substance. Although we can feel the gravitational pull of this other matter, and clearly tell that it’s there, we simply do not know what it is. This mysterious stuff is invisible, or at least nearly so. For lack of a better name, we call it “dark matter.” But naming something is very different from understanding it.

 

For almost as long as we’ve known that dark matter exists, physicists and astronomers have been devising ways to try to learn what it’s made of. They’ve built ultra-sensitive detectors, deployed in deep underground mines, in an effort to measure the gentle impacts of individual dark matter particles colliding with atoms.

 

They’ve built exotic telescopes – sensitive not to optical light but to less familiar gamma rays, cosmic rays and neutrinos – to search for the high-energy radiation that is thought to be generated through the interactions of dark matter particles.

 

And we have searched for signs of dark matter using incredible machines which accelerate beams of particles – typically protons or electrons – up to the highest speeds possible, and then smash them into one another in an effort to convert their energy into matter. The idea is these collisions could create new and exotic substances, perhaps including the kinds of particles that make up the dark matter of our universe.

 

As recently as a decade ago, most cosmologists – including myself – were reasonably confident that we would soon begin to solve the puzzle of dark matter. After all, there was an ambitious experimental program on the horizon, which we anticipated would enable us to identify the nature of this substance and to begin to measure its properties. This program included the world’s most powerful particle accelerator – the Large Hadron Collider – as well as an array of other new experiments and powerful telescopes.

 

But things did not play out the way that we expected them to. Although these experiments and observations have been carried out as well as or better than we could have hoped, the discoveries did not come.

 

Over the past 15 years, for example, experiments designed to detect individual particles of dark matter have become a million times more sensitive, and yet no signs of these elusive particles have appeared. And although the Large Hadron Collider has by all technical standards performed beautifully, with the exception of the Higgs boson, no new particles or other phenomena have been discovered.

 

The stubborn elusiveness of dark matter has left many scientists both surprised and confused. We had what seemed like very good reasons to expect particles of dark matter to be discovered by now. And yet the hunt continues, and the mystery deepens.


In many ways, we have only more open questions now than we did a decade or two ago. And at times, it can seem that the more precisely we measure our universe, the less we understand it. Throughout the second half of the 20th century, theoretical particle physicists were often very successful at predicting the kinds of particles that would be discovered as accelerators became increasingly powerful. It was a truly impressive run.


But our prescience seems to have come to an end – the long-predicted particles associated with our favorite and most well-motivated theories have stubbornly refused to appear. Perhaps the discoveries of such particles are right around the corner, and our confidence will soon be restored. But right now, there seems to be little support for such optimism.

 

In response, droves of physicists are going back to their chalkboards, revisiting and revising their assumptions. With bruised egos and a bit more humility, we are desperately attempting to find a new way to make sense of our world.

 

 

DESPERATE doesn't even begin to describe the situation where Dark Matter is concerned.  

 

But no doubt you charlatans will manage to squeeze a few hundred million more dollars out of it.

 

Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.nature.com/news/dark-matter-hunt-fails-to-find-the-elusive-particles-1.22970

 

Quote

 

Dark-matter hunt fails to find the elusive particles

 

Physicists begin to embrace alternative explanations for the missing material.

 

Physicists are growing ever more frustrated in their hunt for dark matter — the massive but hard-to-detect substance that is thought to comprise 85% of the material Universe. Teams working with the world’s most sensitive dark-matter detectors report that they have failed to find the particles, and that the ongoing drought has challenged theorists’ prevailing views.

 

The latest results from an experiment called XENON1T at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy, published on 30 October1, continue a dry spell stretching back 30 years in the quest to nab dark-matter particles. An attempt by a Chinese team to detect the elusive stuff, the results of which were published on the same day2, also came up empty-handed. Ongoing attempts by space-based telescopes, as well as at CERN, the European particle-physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, have also not spotted any hints of dark-matter particles.

 

The findings have left researchers struggling for answers. “We do not understand how the Universe works at a deeper and more profound level than most of us care to admit,” says Stacy McGaugh, an astrophysicist at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.

 

… snip …

 

The latest round of results seems to rule out the simplest and most elegant super­symmetry theories, casting doubt on the idea that the still-undetected particles are the missing dark matter. If simple supersymmetry theories are no longer viable, scientists say, any WIMP particle has to interact with matter much more feebly than physicists once thought. “It’s not a wholesale retreat from the WIMP paradigm, but it is definitely a change in emphasis,” says Dan Hooper, a physicist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. 

 

Attitudes are shifting, and physicists are increasingly embracing other possible explanations for dark matter, says David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist at Princeton University in New Jersey, who was an early proponent of WIMP models. “These experiments haven’t completely closed the window. However, we also need to be thinking about other types of dark matter and new experiments,” he says. 

 


Too bad none of the alternative being suggested actually look at the physics of plasma realistically (indeed, the article doesn’t even mention plasma).  

 

But you can guarantee they’ll be expensive alternatives and keep these failed physicists employed for another generation or two.  

 

That's their purpose, you know.

 

Just saying …

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.quantamagazine.org/deathblow-dealt-to-dark-matter-disks-20171117/

 

Quote

 

Deathblow Dealt to Dark Matter Disks

 

… snip …

 

The existence of a rich “dark sector” of particles could have consequences on galactic scales. Whereas dark matter of a single, inert type such as an axion would enshroud galaxies in spherical clouds called halos, particles in a dark sector might interact with one another in ways that release energy, enabling them to cool and settle into a lower-energy configuration. Namely, these cooling dark matter particles would collapse into rotating disks, just as stars and gas settle into pancake-shaped rotating galaxies and planets orbit their stars in a plane. In recent years, Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University, has championed the idea that there might be just such a disk of dark matter coursing through the plane of the Milky Way.

 

Randall and collaborators say this hypothetical dark disk could explain several observations, including a possible uptick of asteroid and comet impacts and associated mass extinctions on Earth every 35-or-so million years. As Randall discusses in her 2015 book, Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs, the subtle periodicity might happen because space objects get destabilized each time our solar system passes through the dark disk while bobbing up and down on its way around the galaxy.

 

However, when I reported on the dark disk hypothesis in April 2016, the disk and all it would imply about the nature of dark matter were already in trouble. Inventories of the Milky Way showed that the mass of stars and gas in the galactic plane and the bobbing motions of stars circumnavigating the galaxy match up gravitationally, leaving only a smidgen of wiggle room in which to fit an invisible dark disk. At that time, only an extremely thin disk could exist, accounting for no more than 2 percent of the total amount of dark matter in the galaxy, with the rest being of the inert, halo-forming kind.

 

Still, the presence of any dark disk at all, even one made of a minority of dark matter particles, would revolutionize physics. It would prove that there are multiple kinds of interacting dark matter particles and enable physicists to learn the properties of these particles from the features of the disk. And so researchers have awaited a more precise inventory of the Milky Way to see if a thin disk is needed to exactly match the mass of stuff in the galactic plane to the motions of stars around it. Now, with the numbers in, some say the disk is dead.

 

Katelin Schutz, a cosmology graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley, and coauthors have checked for a dark disk using the first data release from the Gaia satellite, a European spacecraft endeavoring to measure the speeds and locations of one billion Milky Way stars. In a paper posted online Nov. 9 and soon to be submitted to Physical Review Letters, Schutz and collaborators analyzed a subset of the stars measured by Gaia (representing 20 times more stars than had been previously analyzed). Their findings excluded the presence of any dark disk denser than about four-thousandths the mass of the sun per cubic light-year at the midplane of the galaxy. A disk roughly twice as dense would be needed to explain the comet impact periodicity and other original justifications for the dark disk idea. “Our new limits disfavor the presence of a thin dark matter disk,” Schutz and coauthors wrote — and that’s the case, she added by email, even though “we have tried to be quite generous and conservative with our estimations of systematic uncertainty.”

 

“I think it really is dead!” said David Hogg, an astrophysicist at New York University and the Flatiron Institute (which, like Quanta, is funded by the Simons Foundation), and a leading expert in astronomical data analysis. “It is sad, of course.”

 

 

 

Sad?   Why should any discovery of the true nature of the universe make astrophysicists sad?   Just saying ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/dark-matter-dark-energy-may-not-exist-finds-study-117112300710_1.html

 

Quote

 

Dark matter, dark energy may not exist, finds study

 

Dark matter and dark energy may not actually exist, according to a study which suggests that accelerating expansion of the universe and the movement of the stars in the galaxies can be explained without these concepts. For close to a century, researchers have hypothesised that the universe contains more matter than can be directly observed, known as “dark matter”. They have also posited the existence of a “dark energy” that is more powerful than gravitational attraction.

 

These two hypotheses, it has been argued, account for the movement of stars in galaxies and for the accelerating expansion of the universe respectively. However, according to a researcher at the University of Geneva (UNIGE) in Switzerland, these concepts may be no longer valid: the phenomena they are supposed to describe can be demonstrated without them.

 

The research, published in The Astrophysical Journal, exploits a new theoretical model based on the scale invariance of the empty space, potentially solving two of astronomy’s greatest mysteries.


The way we represent the universe and its history are described by Einstein’s equations of general relativity, Newton’s universal gravitation and quantum mechanics.

 

The model-consensus at present is that of a Big Bang followed by an expansion.

 

“In this model, there is a starting hypothesis that has not been taken into account, in my opinion,” said Andre Maeder, professor in UNIGE’s Faculty of Science. “By that I mean the scale invariance of the empty space; in other words, the empty space and its properties do not change following a dilatation or contraction,” said Maeder. The empty space plays a primordial role in Einstein’s equations as it operates in a quantity known as a “cosmological constant”, and the resulting universe model depends on it. Based on this hypothesis, Maeder is now re-examining the model of the universe, pointing out that the scale invariance of the empty space is also present in the fundamental theory of electromagnetism.

 

When Maeder carried out cosmological tests on his new model, he found that it matched the observations.

 

He also found that the model predicts the accelerated expansion of the universe without having to factor in any particle or dark energy.

 

In short, it appears that dark energy may not actually exist since the acceleration of the expansion is contained in the equations of the physics, researchers said. In a second stage, Maeder focused on Newton’s law, a specific instance of the equations of general relativity. The law is also slightly modified when the model incorporates Maeder’s new hypothesis. It contains a very small outward acceleration term, which is particularly significant at low densities. This amended law, when applied to clusters of galaxies, leads to masses of clusters in line with that of visible matter: this means that no dark matter is needed to explain the high speeds of the galaxies in the clusters.

 


Like I said, dark matter and dark energy aren't needed.  

 

They are just gnomes to replace actual understanding.  

 

Gnomes that are now, finally, deflating.

 

I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.wired.com/story/a-mysterious-galactic-glow-hints-at-hidden-pulsars/

 

Quote

 

This year, almost a decade after the launch of the Fermi telescope, researchers have nearly arrived at a consensus. First, pretty much all astrophysicists now agree that the center of our Milky Way produces much more gamma radiation than our models of known gamma-ray sources suggest, said Luigi Tibaldo, an astrophysicist at Stanford University and member of the Fermi collaboration, thus validating Hooper’s once-“amateurish” claims.

 

Second, all that extra radiation is probably not due to dark matter. A number of recent studies have convinced many researchers that pulsars—rapidly spinning neutron stars—can explain all three mysteries.

 

The only problem is that no one seems to be able to find them.

 

 

LOL!   Maybe because it's just another gnome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another day …  another problem for the Big Bang and Black Holes …

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171206131946.htm

 

Quote

 

A team of astronomers, including two from MIT, has detected the most distant supermassive black hole ever observed. The black hole sits in the center of an ultrabright quasar, the light of which was emitted just 690 million years after the Big Bang. That light has taken about 13 billion years to reach us -- a span of time that is nearly equal to the age of the universe.

 

The black hole is measured to be about 800 million times as massive as our sun -- a Goliath by modern-day standards and a relative anomaly in the early universe.


"This is the only object we have observed from this era," says Robert Simcoe, the Francis L. Friedman Professor of Physics in MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Research. "It has an extremely high mass, and yet the universe is so young that this thing shouldn't exist. The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling."

 

Adding to the black hole's intrigue is the environment in which it formed: The scientists have deduced that the black hole took shape just as the universe was undergoing a fundamental shift, from an opaque environment dominated by neutral hydrogen to one in which the first stars started to blink on. As more stars and galaxies formed, they eventually generated enough radiation to flip hydrogen from neutral, a state in which hydrogen's electrons are bound to their nucleus, to ionized, in which the electrons are set free to recombine at random. This shift from neutral to ionized hydrogen represented a fundamental change in the universe that has persisted to this day.

 

The team believes that the newly discovered black hole existed in an environment that was about half neutral, half ionized.

 

"What we have found is that the universe was about 50/50 -- it's a moment when the first galaxies emerged from their cocoons of neutral gas and started to shine their way out," Simcoe says. "This is the most accurate measurement of that time, and a real indication of when the first stars turned on."

 

…. snip …

 

"Something is causing gas within the quasar to move around at very high speed, and the only phenomenon we know that achieves such speeds is orbit around a supermassive black hole," Simcoe says.

 

… snip …

 

There is one large mystery that remains to be solved: How did a black hole of such massive proportions form so early in the universe's history? It's thought that black holes grow by accreting, or absorbing mass from the surrounding environment. Extremely large black holes, such as the one identified by Simcoe and his colleagues, should form over periods much longer than 690 million years.

 

"If you start with a seed like a big star, and let it grow at the maximum possible rate, and start at the moment of the Big Bang, you could never make something with 800 million solar masses -- it's unrealistic," Simcoe says. "So there must be another way that it formed. And how exactly that happens, nobody knows."

 

 

If only these *scientists* could look beyond the end of their noses and see acknowledge other possibilities (outlined by plasma cosmology advocates) for what quasars are, and what’s responsible for redshift.     And, by the way, there are some serious problems with this paper by Robert Simcoe:

 

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25180.epdf?referrer_access_token=9ceIJX_IUhkxnvDFkWFrJNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqRPXsjjgScsA9vtiwnFwpAueweX49aDc6-IVNl_xsYNVNcAED0V-l41wTChxFlIPkD8CFu3aYSU8XZcHrQwEcKgpAJtik1stTVsVMvEUclu8yKonn9HZ1P5xVp7CuKTfx0k80hMtqNKb5WFNT8gyFc7QscA9DG0gyUbzNKqYO8afBCcVsoAyWZUCdhpS4lDE%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.co.uk

 

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere on the web, the title of the letter says the black hole is in a “significantly neutral” universe but the Abstract says “even in our most conservative analysis” “we are probing well within the deionization epoch.”  Both cannot be true.    Also, the Abstract says “The existence of this supermassive black hole when the Universe was only 690 million years old... reinforces early models of black hole growth that allow ... hyper-Eddington accretion” but the MSM article quotes the author saying that it “shouldn’t exist.   The universe was just not old enough to make a black hole that big. It's very puzzling."   Which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×