The scientists from Zaragoza University in Spain and the Institut d'Astrophysic Special in France hypothesized about dark matter based on theoretical studies, and developed a device called a "scintillating bolometer" that tests the reaction created by the material inside the detector.
The dark matter does not emit electromagnetic radiation and no one knows what it really is, but this did not prevent a European team of scientists from developing a device that will be used by the scientists to locate and determine the nature of the dark matter that makes up ¼ of the mass in the entire universe.
The scientists from Zaragoza University in Spain and the Institut d'Astrophysic Special in France hypothesized about dark matter based on theoretical studies, and developed a device called a "scintillating bolometer" that tests the reaction created by the material inside the detector.
"One of the biggest challenges in physics today is to discover the truth about dark matter, which cannot be directly observed - even though it makes up a quarter of all the matter in the universe. That's why we try to locate it using prototypes like the one we built", says Eduard Garcia Abances, a researcher from the Zaragoza Laboratories for Astrophysics and Nuclear Physics.
The research was carried out under the ROSEBUD project, a collaboration between the Institut d'Astrophysical and the University of Zaragoza in the quest to establish the nature of the dark matter in the Milky Way.
The scientists have been working for the last decade on a mission in the underground laboratories in Canfranc, Spain, where they developed detectors in freezing conditions (close to absolute zero). The last of them is the scintillating bolometer, which weighs 46 grams and contains a "scintillating" crystal, which acts as a dark matter detector.
Sparkling crystals are crystals that have the ability to light up or sparkle when they come into contact with ionizing radiation of high energy particles. The scintillating crystal absorbs the energy of the particles and usually shines in the visible light range.
In order to build any kind of detector the scientists had to use hypotheses about the nature of dark matter. The detection techniques developed are based on theoretical studies that point to elementary particles called WIMPs as the main components of dark matter.
"These detection techniques are based on simultaneous measurements of the light and heat emitted as a result of the interaction between the detector and the hypothetical particles WIMP's, which, according to various theoretical models, explain the existence of dark matter", explains Gracia Abanochenes
The researcher explains that the interaction of the material in the detector with the hypothetical particles WIMP's is different from its interaction with other particles that come from space such as those resulting from the background radiation (alpha, beta and gamma particles).
In order to measure the heat on the miniature scale, the detector must be cooled to a temperature close to absolute zero (-273 Celsius), the freezing device reinforced with lead and polyethylene bricks was installed in the underground laboratories at Canfranc to protect it from cosmic radiation.
"The innovative scintillating bolometer showed impressive results, proving its applicability as a detector in experiments to search for dark matter, as well as a gamma-ray spectrometer to monitor the background radiation in these experiments," says Gracia Avancens.
The scintillating bolometer is currently at the University of Orsay in France, where the team is working on optimizing light collection in the device, and performing tests using additional scintillating crystals.
This research, published in the journal "Optical Materials", is part of the European project "The underground calorimeter array for rare events". 16 European institutes take part in this project, with the aim of building an underground structure weighing a ton that will be used as a dark matter detector in the coming decade.
163 תגובות
Why doesn't anyone mention the elethiometer. After all, it is well known that its basis is the dark matter
parable.
I am honored to announce the end (for the time being) of the "digging war" in connection with this article. The discussion has exhausted itself.
We will eagerly await the publication of the measurement results with the scintillator-bolometer device.
It is possible that then it will be possible to be satisfied with much more knowledge and much less idle words.
See you in the next articles.
questionnaire:
Since Ehud saw fit to answer you - I will devote another minute to you as well.
I have already explained to you why there is no connection between the things in many comments in the past but for some reason I did not draw your attention to the biggest absurdity in your words.
If it were magnetism, there would be a difference in the force of attraction (and in fact it would reverse and become a force of repulsion) when the body turns over.
If it was about the attraction of electric charges we would have to find masses of two types where a mass of type A attracts a mass of type B but repels another mass of type A.
These are all phenomena that we see all the time that do not exist.
sympathetic:
I, of course, claimed (and I continue to claim) that the first alternative is necessarily correct.
It is easier for me to give up the claim that all the matter in the world is known to me than the logic and the necessity I spoke of is a result that logic requires while familiarity with all the matter in the universe is not required in any way.
The fact of the existence of the dark mass is confirmed by its gravitational manifestations and in astronomy we do not have any experiment that is not an observation of what is happening anyway. As Eddie said - even if we find WIMPS (and I add:) or any other particle here on Earth - it will not be proof that the dark mass we found here is what drives the galaxies.
In fact - to fulfill your demands from it - the dark mass must be non-dark. This is of course his demand, were I the dark mass I would not be willing to accept.
I accept - as I also said - the claim that gravitation will be replaced or expanded, but I do not think of a possibility that it will be replaced by a theory that does not need dark mass or something similar. After all, it is unthinkable that the same laws of gravitation would cause identical galaxies to act differently, therefore there must be a difference between the galaxies.
Currently this difference is called dark mass because mass/energy is the only thing known to us that can warp space.
So maybe it will become clear to us that the space is simply not uniform - just like that - without any need for a dark mass - just forget to stretch the sheet on the mattress - but this is actually a completely reasonable thing.
The neutrino example you brought up is, in my opinion, an instructive example.
The discovery of the neutrino cost a lot of money and if this money had not been invested - I think you would argue today that the law of conservation of mass and energy needs to be changed because something is missing. You were right in claiming that something was missing, but that something was money and not a change in the law of conservation of mass and energy.
It seems to me that somewhere you complained that the scientific community is not flexible enough in accepting changes (I'm not sure about that and I didn't have the strength to read all the comments again - I guess if you didn't say it - someone else said it) but it seems to me that here - precisely those who refuse To accept the dark mass idea shows a lack of openness to change.
They are so used to the idea that everything that exists in nature can be translated into light that they are not ready to accept any argument that contradicts this - even though there is no law of nature that says that everything can be translated into light.
Michael
In which we will try to summarize the disagreements between us in my opinion:
1. In astronomical observations, a disagreement was obtained between the visible mass distribution and its dynamics as characterized by the velocity field.
2. In order to bridge this disagreement, dark mass models were proposed and attempts were made to change Newton's gravitation theory.
3. Today, after decades of experiments, the dark mass has not yet been found on the one hand, but on the other hand, alternative gravitation theories are unable to explain the complex of phenomena both in terms of the behavior of specific galaxies and in terms of the order of magnitude of the correction they introduce.
4. In addition, additional inconsistencies were found in the observations to the standard model of gravitation and a proposed solution is the existence of dark energy.
Possible conclusions:
1. Since there is no significant alternative to the dark mass hypothesis, it must be true.
2. The fact of the existence of a dark mass has not been confirmed experimentally, but more and more assumptions are made about it in order to get a match with astronomical observations, therefore it is unlikely that it exists.
3. Gravitation as it is currently defined suffers from theoretical problems and compatibility with observations and there is a probability that it will be replaced by a more general theory that the new model will not require the existence of mass and dark energy.
In light of the historical fact that in science we cannot always predict future developments, when a theory fails the theory that replaces it is often fundamentally different and able to explain to a certain extent the results of the experiments that the previous theory was able to explain, I do not believe that one of the possibilities can be ruled out.
to the questionnaire
The progress of science is based on people who do not submit to conventions but despite this there is validity to scientific laws. The validity of scientific laws comes from the fact that they are tested back and forth. Today, there is no chance of a change in Maxwell's laws. Development in science is often combined with new technology. Testing the laws of physics in areas that have not yet been measured leads to new physics. Examples:
1. Classical mechanics at high speeds leads to the special theory of relativity.
2. Physics at short length scales and low temperatures leads to quantum theory.
3. Measurements on astrophysical length and mass scales lead to general relativity and...
In the case where you are discussing magnetism, unfortunately there is not a slim chance that after many decades some innovation will be discovered!
sympathetic,
Reply to your comment (109),
Science, among other things, also goes backwards (technology - always advances) and I further suggested that
To return to the same questions that Maxwell and his friends grappled with and this is the logic:
If I can prove in a permanent magnet that magnetism is a separate phenomenon from the iron (the material),
And by a stronger magnet I can change the positions of the poles (in the first magnet), reverse
them, removing the magnetism almost completely (and through a series of additional experiments).
Or by another experiment I show that when we place a steel needle on top of a copper wire,
When the needle is in the north/south direction and the wire along the east/west axis, and connected
A battery whose positive pole is connected to the eastern end of the wire and the negative pole to
The west pole of the wire. And the needle is magnetized and simultaneously becomes a north pole
and southern, because two currents pass through the electric wire: a current of north magnets coming out of the pole
the positive of the battery and a south magnetic current coming out of the negative pole of the battery.
They move in front of each other in a helical motion (according to the right hand law) and because of their movement
The fast and their helical movement some splash off the wire at 90 degrees and enter the needle
From the center to the sides (all poles flow to one side of the needle) because the needle is sitting
Perpendicular to the wire. If the needle "sits" vertically on the wire, only one side touches it,
She will not be immune.
This is a single experiment from a series of approximately 60 attempts, in the same field, but its conclusions are different
From those of Maxwell, because he thought that the needle is magnetized only on its north side and those particles
Returning to the south pole of the needle and this is how the field begins its course, when
It is about magnetic particles with two poles as a. He does not suspect that it is about the second
Monopole magnetic currents have only one pole.
In any case, even if I'm wrong or right, it's irrelevant, what's important is that no one
He did not bother to find out in a different way the same experiments, on which he stands
whole science. If indeed Maxwell had surpassed it, then the whole study of the atom would have been different,
The wave chamber, and all other life sciences were different today, including dark matter and gravity.
Therefore, as we move forward, we actually move backwards.
Thanks
sympathetic:
I forgot to refer to this sentence "and persuasion according to what most scientists think again this is sociology and not the natural sciences."
Not true.
I mean overall it's not true but only because of the word "again"
When you were talking about the sociological matter before, you were talking about the situation in the scientific community. They really don't use this reasoning there.
This reasoning is relevant in this type of discussion that we are dealing with because it is by definition a sociological phenomenon.
After all, in this discussion there were also attempts (which were censored, fortunately) to convince through profanity!
In this discussion where people who are not experts also take part and maybe mainly there is definitely room for hanging on to high standards.
And of course - how is it possible without - the existence of nothing outside of your private consciousness has not been proven.
And one more thing, Ehud:
I'm sure that gravitation will still change (or at least - I hope it will because otherwise it won't be unified with quantum theory) but that's not our concern.
I am simply claiming that the dark mass, which seems to be required in any possible theory of gravitation, will not be the reason for this change.
sympathetic:
There is almost nothing in the world that is homogeneously distributed (in fact - why almost? There really isn't!) so the claim that the dark mass is not homogeneously distributed only makes it more realistic. In other words - this is not a flaw but an advantage of this theory.
But you are ignoring the main point, but you know it because I have repeated it many times.
To be convinced that there are invisible angels who have not yet discovered them that shift the mass to match the observations and those angels are not homogeneously divided?
It is impossible to convince of something that has not been proven to exist. The fact that there is no reasonable competitor to dark mass does not mean that it is the scientific truth. And persuasion according to what most scientists think again this is sociology and not the natural sciences.
The truth is that in my opinion one of the funniest claims heard here in the discussion is that because a certain galaxy operates exactly according to the laws of the accepted theory of gravity it calls for a revision in the accepted theory of gravity.
There is no doubt that those who are able to say such a thing are not at all ready to be convinced.
Now I see that the anonymous is Eddie.
If you read the text on MOG carefully, you will see that it says that "it is claimed that it works with the slingshot cluster".
In other words - whoever wrote it did not feel that way. This was claimed by someone who wanted to criticize this particular theory.
I don't think it works at all.
It turns out - as I said - that's what most scientists think.
anonymous:
Your words are not true and if you think they are true - please explain to me how MOG creates gravitation and gravitational repulsion around points that do not contain any matter.
You just don't understand what I said.
Dark mass is found - according to the theory - in different amounts in different places.
This allows M94 to be explained without any problem.
It also explains why different galaxies with the same amount of visible matter rotate at different speeds.
No gravitation formula will cause identical galaxies to rotate at different speeds, so we must conclude that if they rotate at different speeds - something is different about them.
But since this something is not visible - we must conclude that it is something invisible.
I've already explained this many times and I think you didn't understand because you didn't want to understand.
That's why I'm pretty sure you won't understand even now.
To Michael Rothschild and Ehud,
This is me at 145.
to an anonymous user
In general I agree with you as well as with the claim against MOND. In an argument with Michael I was required
(so that he does not accuse me of mere steam) in support of some theory and not only in complaints about the existing theory.
My main claim is (again in my opinion) there is a fundamental problem with the theory of gravitation that manifests itself both on the theoretical side (inconsistencies with quantum theory - general relativity cannot be normalized) and on the side
The experimental that until now in order to match the observations with the theory, the researchers had to produce dark matter and dark energy.
I am not sure that the fact that it seems to me that the theory of gravitation requires correction means that this is the case. There are examples such as the problem of the missing energy in beta emission, where the assumption of a particle that has not yet been discovered solved the problem.
In my opinion, the question is indeed essentially sociological and somewhat similar to what happens in the economy as long as the economy runs normally, then the laws of the economy (if there are any) work in moments of economic crisis, the researchers are still trying
Apply the laws that worked before instead of changing the laws. It is difficult to identify the moment when a crisis occurs
But in my opinion there are signs of this for the theory of gravitation. Unlike you I find that I agree with Cohen
And believe that normal science tends to be conservative and maintain its paradigms even when contradictory experiments are discovered
them.
Michael:
I want to return to your comments 92 and 93:
According to your first claim -
As I said in response 90, the difficulty of the slingshot accumulator at its base is omitted or can be explained by theories of MOG, of M. Reuter and H. Weyer, and some theories from the field of string theory (theory, M to be more precise).
It's a shame you cling to the MOND theory as if it were the real alternative to the dark matter hypothesis and the omniscient.
For your second claim -
A. The galaxy M94 is exactly the evidence to contradict the dark matter hypothesis - because it does not contain dark matter - and it contradicts the method of the dark matter hypothesis.
B. The galaxy M94 calls for a correction or revision in the accepted theories of gravitation. And this is exactly what the extended gravitation theories mentioned above are trying to do in my answer to the 'first claim'!
Therefore I am firm in my view that the dark matter hypothesis is an open question, and in fact, at this stage it is neither preferred nor necessary in view of the principle of Ockham's razor; And it is not clear at all that it is based - since it has no direct evidence but indirect evidence that can be explained by extended gravitational theories, and others.
Even if we assume that the majority of scientists dealing with the issue agree with the truth of the dark matter hypothesis - this fact is not decisive. This reasoning, known in philosophy as the 'reasoning from the general consensus', has less weight, especially in situations where it is a hypothesis rather than a theory, and when science is in a transitional phase of preliminary investigation. And it is also unnecessary to mention that in the history of science there were many theories that were 'agreed on' by most and even the entire scientific community, and some of those that were even considered well-founded at the time - which were proven after a while to be baseless and today are considered historical curiosities, sometimes amusing.
In general, I believe that the dark matter hypothesis, if at all there is general or close to general agreement among the scientific community even though it has no direct foundation, even though it is fantastic on the face of it and even though a preliminary inquiry has not yet been made or agreed upon and the alternatives to it have not been considered - it is evidence of a very symptom The problem of the scientific community, and of the science it produces. This is a symptom of the 'primitive science' syndrome, one of the signs of which is the ad hoc invention of arbitrary entities to solve specific problems, in a 'deus ex machina' manner. We thought we got rid of this syndrome when the special theory of relativity broke out - which buried, among other things, the 'ether', and here it is coming back to us in a new glory...
sympathetic,
It's a shame you joined the discussion a little late, but in light of your enlightening words - better late than never...
In general, I agree with you that at this stage of scientific knowledge, the issues that have arisen around the problems in astrophysics, which gave birth to the dark matter hypothesis - do not have a definitive or clear enough solution.
At the same time, since I personally do not accept Thomas Kuhn's theory (regardless of his historical factual analysis - which I think is correct), I do not agree that the question is purely sociological. I believe that with all this that the issue is open, and is in some stage of transition - there are sufficient reasons (rational - matter-of-fact and logical) to try to solve the issues not by ad hoc inventing some kind of fantastic material (and as I said in one of my previous responses - similar to the website or the phlogiston at the time) but by a serious attempt and a lot of creativity and courage to create extended gravitation theories, and if necessary - also revolutionary to the required extent. Of course, any such attempt should be done with great responsibility, while making sure to preserve the fundamental principles of the entire science of physics (such as the unity of the physical law in space), and not by breaking them, and the one who understands will understand.
In any case, as I have mentioned several times, in my opinion there are some serious theories in the required direction. On the other hand, the invention or distillation of the dark matter is a solution of the type that characterizes primitive science, a science in which difficulties have an arbitrary and simplistic solution along the lines of 'deus ex machina'. This is not the science to strive for, rationally.
As for your dissatisfaction with the theory of gravitation, in general - well, everyone knows the problem of the contradiction between the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum, and this is the biggest problem of depth in physics.
If I understand or guess you correctly, you may think that the physical truth is or should be found more on the side of the quantum, and that relativity must bend to a different degree from it or change and undergo corrections and extensions, which will probably also include solutions to difficulties such as the astrophysical ones that gave birth to the dark matter hypothesis, for example.
Personally, this is my feeling, since quantum theory was, and still remains, a wide collection of empirical facts and phenomena that create insights, while relativity is fundamentally based on a 'worldview', a kind of dogma that is applied or enforced on reality with the help of insight or only a limited number of Basic insights and basic facts and phenomena, which undergo logical and mathematical generalization - and now require 'verifications'. Since the dogmatic perceptive ability of reason at any given moment is limited, despite its general progress on the timeline, it is likely that the theory of relativity will be more vulnerable to its foundations and will require more basic corrections.
I'd be glad to hear your opinion.
Lenaam
A response can be found in the "Free Responses" section of the website
http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/
To Noam, clicking on Sabdarmish's name brings you to his blog, I politely suggested that he move the discussion there and I suggest that anyone who wants to debate with him do so.. It is impossible to hold the same debate for the tenth time, without adding any new data.
His phone number is 0522-570989
Noam Shalom
I will try to explain later
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lenaam
As you say, scientific controversies are at the heart of the scientific method, and I also agree with you in the way it will be settled, but it is not possible for someone to sit next to the censorship button and decide that because he does not like the answer I give, he can censor it as was done with my previous two and it seemed to me also of others.
For example, can I be sure that you will accept this response of mine?, when Michael is apparently the one standing next to the button?
So I'm really willing to answer your questions, but not Michael's, and this is to prevent or reduce his desire to censor.
It is forbidden to censor a scientific website. point.
I have nothing to do with responses to my words, Michael, unless I am assured, absolutely, that I will not be censored anymore!
If not, then you will have an "exemplary" scientific site here where everyone agrees with everyone else (the rest are censored)
So forgive me Noam, I'm dying to answer your question, but it's Michael's question and I don't feel like answering him,
good evening
And hopefully I won't be censored
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda Sabdarmish,
Michael asked a simple question:
"The galaxy M94 is a complete galaxy that behaves exactly according to the laws of general relativity.
Other galaxies - which look just like it - rotate faster."
How can this finding be explained by changing Newton's laws?
After all, any change will apply to both galaxies together, and once again we will get an unexplained situation (unless we insert a parameter in the new formula of the name of the galaxy..-just, just a bad joke)
And a note on the nature of the discussion, if I may:
Scientific controversies are at the heart of the scientific method. Discovering a certain phenomenon, trying to explain it in several ways, until finally new observations and/or experiments manage to find out the more correct explanation.
If it is so simple - and certainly also agreed upon - why does the discussion have to get heated to "unscientific" levels at all?
And whoever bothers to really delve into response 107 will understand that the facts described in it indicate that dark mass will be necessary in any gravitation theory imaginable even in principle, therefore there is no sense in looking for a new gravitation theory just because the existing one requires dark mass.
By the way, beyond all of the above, MOND requires much, much, much, much more dark energy.
sympathetic:
Just to be clear: the last sentence is not meant to express what I think will happen.
I don't think you will really follow the path of Judah.
I wrote this only as a reference to lie 137
sympathetic:
In this dialogue there is only one deaf person.
You bothered not to notice but I didn't take care of any typo of yours. I really don't know until this moment what you meant because this mistake allowed for two different interpretations of their meaning, so I wasn't lazy and answered both.
Are you telling me you really didn't notice that?
The problem with MOND is not that it does not explain M94 but that it is hidden by it.
This is a clear refutation of her.
It is not clear to me how a disproved theory can be a good basis.
All observations can - in the usual theory - be explained by dark mass.
MOND, on the other hand - not only does it require dark mass itself (as even Einstein admitted) - but it is hidden by the facts in such a way that even dark mass will not help it.
What is so hard to understand here?
You are really starting to follow Yehuda's path and the end may even be that you will curse and your comments will be censored because of this and you will also complain about the blocking of Jurot.
to love
If so, I also agree that the MOND theory is a correct approach to begin with.
But, pay attention Ehud, if you continue your attempts to confront Michael you will be censored. You'd better be short, there's no point.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Indeed, Michael, we are having a deaf conversation. What's more, you started taking care of my typing mistakes. I won't ask what you meant by "to understand" and start analyzing the typo. The intention was that, as far as I am concerned, MOND has a scientific basis because it speaks in fiscal quantities and not in artelian claims. By the way Yehuda I did not claim that MOND
Explains the observations of M94 but only that in my opinion MOND is the beginning of a more comprehensive theory.
Michael, unlike other fields in space physics, we observe and do not perform experiments in the laboratory, therefore there is a difference between astronomy and the other sciences! As for dark matter, it is indeed supposed to be discovered in an experiment on Earth, rather than an observation. I don't think it is necessary to actually see the dark matter, this is also a contradiction in itself, it is impossible to see something dark or maybe it is better to call it transparent. I definitely think that dark matter, if it exists and I highly doubt it, should be discovered in my laboratory experiments. Which despite many efforts did not happen.
You for some reason do not address my claims about the problems astrophysical observations have required until today
You invented dark mass and dark energy to explain them. It seems that we are returning to the dark days of science
covering his eyes. What about the theoretical incompatibility between general and quantum relativity. by the way mismatch
Between the electromagnetic theory (Machswell equations) and Galili transformation dragged the invention of special relativity.
As mentioned, the debate between us is pointless because neither you nor I have solid information to determine who is right
And I think what's left is to take care of typos...
to love
Your analysis is exhaustive and accurate, except that galaxy M94 does not operate according to the MOND theory, therefore the aforementioned theory cannot be a substitute for gravitation and something else must be sought as a substitute.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
Last comment because I don't think we will make any progress.
There is no reason for the difference between astronomy and the other sciences.
If dark matter exists which by definition is matter that does not interact with light then it is simply crazy to demand to see it.
The existence of dark matter is proven by many observations - in fact, most galaxies have such observations.
You stay all the time in the realm of preaching morality and don't treat anything matter-of-factly.
Only if you address the questions I raised in response 107 will there be any point in talking to you.
I mentioned MOND in my last response because you wrote "If you are interested, I would be happy to enlighten you on why I think that MOND has a scientific foundation and is indeed the beginning of the road to building a different theory of gravitation."
Note that you wrote "scientific substantiation"
I thought you meant "scientific basis" and that's what I responded to.
Your last comment does not show any scientific basis for this Torah - it only refers to the fact that it has a "scientific expression" so maybe you meant "expression" and not "foundation" or maybe you meant to hybridize the two.
The fact that the Torah has a scientific expression does not mean that it has a scientific foundation.
MOND has no scientific basis and as you will see if you finally refer to reaction 107 there is not even a hint of a solution to the dark matter problem.
More than that - it is hidden by M94 - that is - the fact that it has a scientific expression is extremely important because it is the basis for its complete refutation.
Michael
First, when I write "observed" I do not mean, God forbid, observed with the eye, I use the expression because in astrophysics observations of space are made and not experiments. Although if the existence of dark matter is assumed it is also possible to carry out experiments and for now they have not yielded anything. The theoretical entities regularly used in science are consistently confirmed by experiments and are also predicted by experimental results, which are subsequently verified.
Second, assuming the existence of dark matter and planting it only in the places where it should be is at least puzzling to me. Why is there no dark matter in the M94 galaxy?
As I argued in my first response today there is no theory describing the observations that has been proven beyond any doubt. No matter how you present it, dark matter has not yet been observed and therefore does not have a superior status over other theories which are also not the end of the road because they have problems explaining some of the experiments. I suggest you read up a bit on the history of science before you make any sweeping announcements.
Regarding science: MOND, unlike other theories, defines a quantity that has fiscal dimensions. The acceleration a0 for me is the beginning of a theory. Planck also defined a physical quantity hbar at the time, which was intended to explain black body radiation using a quantity. Quantum theory was built in later stages, so MOND has real physics in my opinion. Once again the debate between us is sociological and not scientific and I would suggest you show a little more modesty before making firm determinations.
Ami:
Write us what is written in your deleted comment.
The ones that haven't been deleted don't mean anything except that you despise science.
And - on occasion - bring us tangible evidence from Neptune.
sympathetic:
And if you didn't understand - then the questions in response 107 also refer to MOND so you are definitely welcome to compare MOND with these facts.
sympathetic:
It seems to me that we are not progressing anywhere.
I told you to keep looking.
This whole article is a result of the fact that we keep looking.
All our physical theory is based on entities that have never been observed.
All scientists - and not just me - see dark mass as the only logical explanation.
You are welcome to be matter-of-fact and answer the questions in response 107.
Just to emphasize that when you define a completely theoretical entity just to get a match with the results of an experiment or measurement, I don't see it as solving the problem, but avoiding the problem (this despite the tremendous success of the neutrino in explaining the missing energy in beta decay).
Michael
The disagreement between us is mainly related to what you, as opposed to me, are willing to accept as an explanation. Ordinary science often encounters mysteries which it usually solves using the set of rules that stands at its head. For example: the famous physicist Pauli invented the existence of a neutral particle (considered to be massless) to explain the missing energy in beta decay. In this case the set of rules (quantum theory) has not changed and it turns out that there is indeed a particle that solves the question of the missing energy in the experiment. It took the neutrino about thirty years to be discovered after it was predicted by Pauli. The basis of your position on dark mass is the neutrino-like prediction. Sometimes it is not enough within the framework of the existing laws to explain certain experiments. Here I will return again to the Michelson-Morley experiments which I think you did not understand the point I wish to convey through it. Physicists tried to explain the Michelson-Morley experiments not by changing the laws of mechanics but by using ether so that its pressure would cause bodies to contract. That is, define material properties not measured in the laboratory to explain experimental results. In this case it was necessary to extend the laws of mechanics to those of special relativity and not to make assumptions about the properties of the site.
Why do I think that the situation today requires a perceptual and not a cosmetic change (dark mass) I have written this several times: the number of unexplained measurements is increasing in order to maintain the laws of gravitation until now astrophysicists have had to define dark mass and dark energy must be added to this the theoretical disagreement between general relativity to quantum theory and it can be seen that one of these theories needs to change (at this point the scientific fundamentalist agrees with my claims). In my humble opinion, the theory of gravitation needs revision. Since I didn't offer an alternative or say how the theory would change, I don't see the need to deal with the question of how there is one galaxy that fulfills Newton's laws of gravitation. It's not clear to me how you hang on to this galaxy as supporting the explanation of dark matter since it doesn't exist for it.
The dark mass was not predicted in advance, it was invented ad hoc to justify the results of measurements. There is no prediction using dark mass (in my opinion, a scientific theory requires the ability to predict). Although countless candidates for the dark particle have been proposed, such a particle has yet to be found. It goes without saying that the motivation is tremendous for finding such a particle since it is a Nobel Prize guaranteed in advance for the direct finding.
If you are interested, I would be happy to explain to you why I think that MOND has a scientific foundation and is indeed the beginning of the road to building another theory of gravitation.
Take everything lightly, don't be heavy
Why are you so petty and dogmatic on this site?
Why don't you have doubts in life?
What happened, you have to bow to the science you believe in.
Why are you deleting questionable questions?
Ami:
What do you want exactly?
This is what we are trying to do with this device.
There is a great deal of data indicating the existence of dark matter, but since we don't know exactly what it is - we are looking.
It is very good that you say that it is necessary to search because otherwise no one would know about it.
By the way - while the scientists are looking for dark matter, I suggest you bring us a tangible example from the planet Neptune.
The device reminds of the magic sticker for those who remember not long ago.
The one that knows how to sample sugar level, blood pressure, heart rate, lies and cowards.
For those who believe in mass/dark energy you should bring some.
Of course we're sorry, but you still haven't been able to catch it, no problem, we'll wait for you until you catch a bit.
Yehuda:
Well done!
I understand that you interpret my father's request as a request not to respond objectively or politely (since you allowed yourself to give an irrelevant and violent response)
Very reminiscent of the magic sticker for those who remember. The one that knows how to sample sugar level, blood pressure, pulse and lie detector.
There are many who believe in aliens. So why do they fail to convince because they are asked to bring something tangible.
Like an alien corpse or an alien spaceship.
So for those who believe in dark mass/energy to bring some it would be nice to check.
There are enough interpretations and also practical stories.
And to all the other commenters
It was nice to meet you
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
Why are you asking me questions when you know that my father asked not to respond to you??
Now you can say all the nonsense you want, without a response from me.
You will be perfumed
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And Ehud - you too are welcome to say something relevant and deal with response 107.
sympathetic:
In my opinion, it's presumptuous that grows in madness to think that someone needs you to tell them no no no no in order to open their minds.
To remind you, we are not talking about dark energy here but about dark mass.
In my opinion, it is also wrong to see the existence of a solution as evidence of a crisis. A crisis is when there is no solution - not when there is a solution.
The attempt to find a solution within the known physics is called Ockham's razor and its function is to prevent a separate law proposal for each result of each experiment.
It is a blessed thing like no other.
The dark mass is only a proposal to solve the problem, just as the idea that the ether causes the energy of bodies is meant to explain the Michaelson Morley experiment. As mentioned, the experiment was eventually explained by the theory of relativity and the site was abandoned as an idea. Since the problem has not been solved, even though there may be many who believe that the dark mass is the solution, this should not be seen as the end of the verse at least until the dark mass is not discovered in a measurement and not only announced as an entity whose purpose is to explain measurements. There is some thought trouble in seeing the dark mass as the solution, it is similar to declaring that a murder suspect is the murderer because at this moment there are no other suspects.
You should not consider things steam even though I have not invented an alternative alternative to the dark mass. My words are intended to open the mind to other possibilities based on a broader historical evidence.
When science encounters an experiment or measurement that it does not know how to explain, it will always first try to explain it within the dominant paradigm by adding as few changes as possible. Sometimes a paradigm faces a crisis
and are forced to replace it as has already happened several times in the history of science. I can't prove that this is the situation now, so the discussion is at the level of sociology, but I don't think it can be ruled out. In my opinion, no alternative to a weak solution indicates a crisis. In my opinion, dark energy is a weak solution because they have been looking for it for decades and it has not yet been found.
questionnaire:
The area.
sympathetic:
If we were dealing with prophecy there would be room to refer to your words.
Since you don't offer anything practical - all that can be said is that you are whining.
By the way - the proposed solution to the problem discovered in the Michelson Morley experiment is the theory of relativity - a theory that many scientists had a hard time digesting at the beginning of its journey.
The currently proposed solution to the rapid rotation of the galaxies and the gravitational churning around "empty" points is the dark mass.
In short - the dark mass is a solution and not a problem.
Of course - it is clear that the existence of a solution indicates the existence of the problem because if there was no problem there would be no need for a solution, but to present the solution as a problem seems a little strange to me and the fact is that this is the opinion of the scientific community.
Avi:
You demand extraordinary proofs from Yehuda.
I demand much less from him - before he comes with proof I think he should say something.
As I said - the fact that he doesn't like the dark mass he said a thousand times and for that he doesn't need proof because he knows best what he likes and what he doesn't like.
The point is that on a scientific website there is no need to hear what Yehuda likes and what he doesn't and certainly there is no need to hear this in every discussion where the word dark mass is mentioned (not to mention that it is unacceptable that he fights people to defeat the dark mass).
Yehuda:
Does anything you quoted from my speech not accurately describe the situation?
Is it not true that you understood that salvation would not come from them?
Isn't it true that this is "finally" because in the past you offered them many times as salvation?
Didn't you suggest throwing away gravity (and quote: "You can continue to hold onto Newton and then be forced to add dark mass, but you can also throw away gravity, which disappoints us time and time again, and choose something else.")?
By the way - it's interesting how gravity disappoints us time and time again without doing it even once.
And a questionnaire - to your last response - in addition to the fact that I will also add that it is not nice to lie.
Does anyone of all the attackers have any factual reference?
Let's see one logical and orderly response to my 107 response.
Avi,
Go through Mr.'s comments one more time. Rothschild. It is true that he adds
Occasionally an objective response and not everything is black and white. But he attacks rudely
Even those who "accidentally" fell into the conversation, not to mention someone who entered with him
for debate I agree that attacking an opinion is legitimate, but straight up attacking the person
himself without the other party provoking him, this is a regular behavior and conduct in
Mr. Rothschild. And there is really no need to understand the intricacies of man in order to prove this.
What is amazing is that Yehuda is trying to appease him, calm him down a bit and move on
to the subject itself, but Mr. Rothschild only interprets this as an invitation to battle….
I am not in favor of any kind of verbal violence, I have participated in many scientific forums
(mainly in English) and really occasionally get down to a personal level, but not even that
Approaching the phenomenon that appears here.
I am puzzled by this.
Thanks
Yehuda, my friend, I dismiss you from bringing examples from the Tanach and the New Testament, there are other sites that deal with that 🙂
As for science, this is the specialty of the science site and I don't think we should give up on that. As Carl Sagan said, whoever makes an extraordinary claim must have extraordinary proof.
To my father
Your approach, mine is also allowed to comment on the subject of dark mass, only things that were said before by someone from the academy or published in the scientific press (or maybe in your book?, in the New Testament?) is not acceptable to me.
Let's relax and see what we do
Hopefully I won't be censored
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To my father
In response 103 Michael says:-
"Yehuda finally understood that no correction such as MOND and a friend of his people would succeed.
He hates the dark mass so much that he is willing to throw away everything as long as he doesn't acknowledge its existence.
That's why he offers to throw away gravity and fly us wherever we want." End quote.
And finally, he suggests that I fly from the site.
I don't understand why when I responded to such a despicable attack, I was censored. Why is she not censored?
I think it's unfair.
But this is your site, father, and that's how you want it
But in my opinion this is not scientific behavior
Hopefully I won't be censored
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Although I do not agree with Yehuda's opinion, there is no doubt that his presence is both entertaining and challenging and the number of responses will prove it.
Yehuda, as I explained to you, I am trying to try to lower the volume of the debates on the site.
I read the comments. There is a difference between attacking an opinion and attacking a person. Your opinion as well as mine can be attacked. The problem is that the debate, which was not managed for the first time, rose to high tones. I would be happy if it stopped here.
As for the next time dark matter is mentioned, I have a constructive suggestion. Look for articles that support your views or at least some of them, published in the peer-reviewed scientific press, and I will even be happy to translate their extracts. As long as you say the same thing and your opponents give you the same answers we will get nowhere.
Have we started again with the censorship???
Where is my previous comment? And the one in front of her?
But Michael's comments in which he attacks my opinion remain?
Disgusting, and not a scientific approach
Surely this comment will also be censored?
Turning to my father Blizovsky
And we'll see what's going on here.
Science does not go back, at most it changes the overall concept within which it groups phenomena.
In this matter, the fact that science underwent a significant change after the special theory of relativity does not mean that it was not possible to perform the Michaelson Morley experiment that showed that the speed of light is constant regardless of the observer's speed. Although the experiment contradicts classical mechanics, it was discovered within its framework. I agree that the picture of the world today is quite comprehensive, it describes well a huge number of phenomena, nevertheless there are two small clouds on the horizon: dark mass and dark energy. These, in my opinion, point to problems like the Michelson-Morley experiment and black body radiation pointed out at the time, even though Lord Kelvin, who was a great physicist, thought that physics had come to an end.
Mr. Rothschild,
What lacks a scientific basis, that the poles of the planets (with the exception of Uranus) deviate slightly
From the axis of the sun's poles, and as their distance increases so does the deviation?
Or do you already know how the sun's magnetic field affects planets?
Or you suggest that the magnetic fields are not important in the structure and motions of galaxies
And solar systems? What exactly did you want to say?
sympathetic,
First, it is not entirely clear what gravity is, it is only clear how it behaves (at least
in the solar system). Dark matter and dark energy are probably coming to fill a circle
is missing to complete the picture and support what has already been "agreed on", and soon too
They will discover the particle that makes up the dark matter and everything will be fine - don't worry...
But the truth is that this is the small problem here, the more significant issue is how much they will need
Go back if God forbid they discover magnetic monopoles, or that radio waves move too
in the air (and are not returned to the earth as radio waves) and most of them pass through the earth.
Discoveries from nowhere could bring about a fundamental change in existing physics and much more
Domains.
As of now, it's just on the way.
I want to repeat and emphasize two things that all providers ignore and all preachers try to hide:
The galaxy M94 is a complete galaxy that behaves exactly according to the laws of general relativity.
Other galaxies - which look exactly like it - rotate faster.
What makes more sense to claim:
That in the different galaxies different laws of nature operate or that in the different galaxies there are parts that we don't see - and they are the ones that make the difference?
And regarding the Bullet Cluster - does it make sense to claim that the gravitational clouding around an area where there is nothing we see is really caused by "nothing" or does it make more sense to claim that there is something there that we don't see?
I must say I am amazed.
questionnaire:
Your words lack any scientific basis but if you believe it - try to propose it to some research institute or even better than that - investigate what you say needs to be investigated and try to publish the result in a scientific journal with peer review.
The truth is that all of the above was a joke because there is no way you will succeed in any of this and my real advice to you is to go study a little.
sympathetic:
If they had changed the gravitation in any such situation, they would not have been able to discover the stars that were discovered just like that - as a result of discrepancies between the expected orbit of stars and the one in which they actually moved.
A sociological question is a question that has several alternatives, the choice between which is not on a scientific basis.
That is not the case here.
There aren't many alternatives here and the choice is between accepting the existing findings and continuing the search and cursing the whole world and his wife as some of the commenters here are doing.
Besides - to say that "it is possible and necessary to change the gravitation" is to say nothing.
This is always true.
Here are some equivalent formulations for the exact same claim:
- "Perhaps there is no need to change gravity"
- "It may or may not be necessary to seriously consider - or perhaps not consider at all - the possibility of changing gravitation or alternatively not changing it".
In my opinion there is a fundamental flaw in the theory of gravitation as it is, for example in recent years it was necessary to back it up with dark mass and dark energy. The need for these two hypotheses indicates deep problems in the theory. Add to that the fact that gravitation as it is is not compatible with quantum theory and you get hints
so that it is possible and necessary to change the grotation. Note: The change can also be made in the form of an expansion as the special theory of relativity includes the classical limit when the speed is small compared to the speed of light. As long as a dark mass has not been discovered, it cannot be claimed that it has solved the problems, but neither can it be claimed that there is an alternative theory, therefore the question is essentially sociological. In my opinion, the situation today is similar to the observations that were discovered before Copernicus came up with his theory, at that time he distorted Ptolemy's theory more and more to fit the observations instead of changing a paradigm, but this is only a view.
direction of further research into the structure and movement in galaxies or our solar system,
They are the magnetic fields that operate between the bodies (in addition to the gravitational forces, the masses
and the rotational momentum). For example in our solar system most of the magnetic poles point
at a deviation of up to 60 degrees from that of the sun, and as the distance from the sun increases, so
Also the deviation (which maybe can be explained by the shape of the field). Something that can
to imply an active force between and having an effect on the structure and movement in the system.
The magnetic strength of these fields were indeed measured as relatively weak (Jupiter is the strongest among them
stands at 428,000 nano-tesla). But even if their intensity is small at the point of measurement,
The total amount of magnetic field is much larger, and extends to much greater distances
beyond its magnetosphere. And maybe the interactions with moons, other planets
And the sun, can play a much more significant role than is known.
The sun's magnetic field, for example, is not suspected of influencing the structure of the system,
and the displacement characteristics of the planets. On the other hand, the sent solar wind is interpreted
of her as the most powerful…..so much so that she prevents comets from colliding with her.
But not much is known about its magnetic lines of force and the interaction with those of the planets.
The same goes for measuring magnetic fields in galaxies, although they were measured as weak, but
They have not yet been given too much importance in the structure of galaxies. It is also possible that the field measurement
The magnetism is not complete or does not reflect other characteristics in it.
Food for thought and direction of investigation.
sympathetic:
Yehuda finally understood that no correction such as MOND and a friend of his people would succeed.
He hates the dark mass so much that he is willing to throw away the wave as long as he does not acknowledge its existence.
That's why he offers to throw away gravity and fly us wherever we want.
We - those on whom the forces of nature and logic act - cannot do this.
By the way, I am amazed that Yehuda, who can fly wherever he wants and does not recognize the existence of natural laws, chooses to fly to a site that deals with science.
The correction of adding the dark mass is very small.
The percentages that Yehuda often plays on are meaningless.
You should know that if there is dark mass then one of its particles has infinitely more dark mass than normal mass.
The question is not a sociological question at all.
I repeat: no one has ever proposed any alternative that is consistent with the facts and if someone thinks otherwise, they are still welcome to vote for the alternative.
My intention for a small correction was not in its quantitative value but in its effect on the structure of the existing theory. For me, maintaining the same laws of physics and adding an unknown particle is a small change of the theory. While changing the rules is a big change of the theory.
sympathetic
You talk about a small fix but here we need a big fix. If there was a deviation in the measurements of a few percent, let's say, but a thousand percent???, it requires a serious correction!!
Remember that the "tiny" correction in mass is not enough because immediately you must add another "tiny" correction of repulsive force that will cancel out the previous correction at the great distances of the edge of the universe for the acceleration of the universe.
Other than that, Happy holiday
And you will surely hear from our friend Michael soon
Sabbath, day of rest
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I am sorry that I am joining the discussion at such a late stage. Whether or not there is a dark mass is difficult to judge. Today it is clear that problems were discovered with the explanation of the observations using Newton's theory and what we know about the particles that make up the matter in the universe. In such a situation there are two choices: a small correction of the theory by adding an additional actor that has not yet been measured but allows to bridge the inconsistency in the theory for example a site or to fundamentally change the theory. The distinction between these two approaches is well described in Thomas Kuhn's book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Whether the inconsistency of the experimental results with our knowledge requires a drastic perceptual change or the dark mass assumption is enough is difficult to know. In my opinion, it is difficult to decide between the two approaches in particular because at the moment it is not a scientific question but a sociological question about the beliefs of scientists. By the way, scientists tend to be conservative about theories that have proven themselves for a long time and not easily, they tend to give them up - rightfully so.
A small question with big meanings:
Do electromagnetic waves move in two dimensions (and are measured by wavelength,
amplitude, and of course frequency) or they are helical (three dimensions) and we use
Only in the profile dimensions?
Thanks
The skeptic:
Dark matter is a very reasonable possibility and not only is it reasonable - it also explains.
That there is a possibility that we don't know something is not something that should even be said. it's clear. The question is what to do with this statement.
I don't think there's a spaghetti monster out there that distorts the light rays and apart from the dark matter, no proposal has come up anywhere that is compatible with all the findings.
Regarding the percentages you mentioned in your response - I cannot comment because I do not know what you are talking about.
It's a lot of stars. Obviously we don't know if one of them is inhabited by field mice. Is this ignorance included in the percentages?
Michael wrote:
"Eddie:
Wonder what you're wondering about.
Can you even in your imagination compare a theory of gravity according to which the center of gravity of a galaxy is not at the center of gravity?
This is what happens in the Bullet Cluster if it is assumed that there is no dark mass."
This is not necessarily true for the simple reason that we do not know or know the Bullet Cluster environment 100%, the truth is not even 25%... (I am of course relying only on logic in this statement, I have not read it anywhere) Hence it can be assumed that there is no dark matter and that there is something there Another one that we don't know about or another physical behavior that we haven't studied...
But dark matter is also a pretty reasonable possibility...
And I'm sure you know full well what I meant in comment 90 and it's not the bullshit you've been trying to sell people here.
Yehuda:
Did I say I know nothing will convince you?
I said!
I no longer argue with you because you never give reasons.
You're just content with giving titles to theories, people and comments.
Whatever.
To Michael
The Bullet Cluster does not prove that there is dark mass, but proves that something is seriously screwed up in the gravity formulas. You can continue to hold onto Newton and then force to add dark mass, but you can also throw away the gravity that disappoints us time and time again and choose something else.
Again we agree to the data and reach the conclusions that are far from each other.
In addition, I must refer again to your mysterious (dark?)
What does your comment in response 90 mean?
"What is certain is that my way of drawing conclusions led me to better places than the ones your way of drawing conclusions led you to." End quote.
A fighter who goes out to conquer a target does so even when he knows that there are officers who are sitting happily in better places. So what do you have here to be proud of that you chose the easy Jobnik path and arrived at rest and inheritance.
I don't give up my way.
Second thing - in the same comment, later on, you turn to those who agree with me and accuse them of laziness, why?
(I want to say something about all those who join Judah in their opposition to science:
In my opinion, everything is the result of laziness!" end quote.)
Everyone who agrees with me is lazy and everyone who agrees with your conventional wisdom is hardworking?
In short, Mr. Michael, your response 90 is a poor and slanderous response.
But otherwise
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Eddie:
And this is not about personal emotions.
The opinion that dark matter exists is the accepted opinion in the scientific community.
It has nothing to do with me or you, but it is a fact nonetheless.
That's why I claimed that the scientific community agrees with me is a correct claim.
You call the readers of science to read and decide.
I am just adding a figure to them - which I think is important for anyone who is not an expert in the field (and does not suffer or enjoy feelings of grandeur) and is the figure in the opinion of those who are experts.
Eddie:
Wonder what you're wondering about.
Can you even in your imagination compare a theory of gravity according to which the center of gravity of a galaxy is not at the center of gravity?
This is what happens in the Bullet Cluster if it is assumed that there is no dark mass.
Besides - no gravitation theory that predicts a gravitation that exceeds the one predicted by the theory of relativity does not fit even with the M94 galaxy that fully obeys Newton's laws (something that brings us to the conclusion that it has little or no dark mass)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M94
Michael:
In response to your response 90 and further to the words in response 88 (and - 89):
I'm sorry, but your reading of the quotes on the alternative theories is selective.
The popular theories that I mentioned are exactly the same as the first theories that were mentioned - simple theories, and they are the MOND theory and the Beckenstein theory and they were said in the passage to be insufficient. I can appreciate the effort you put in to verify and contrast Milgrom's theory with Beckenstein's theory by an exchange of letters - but for our purpose and the purpose of the discussion here it is not important, since, as indicated in the quote I provided - Milgrom's theory is indeed not strong enough and also the fact that Beckenstein's theory is not challenged Good luck with the findings. The sling cluster is old and new and well known to the scientific community.
When I spoke about successful theories that explain the problems in astrophysics and eliminate the dark matter hypothesis, I meant the theories that are mentioned later in the references (after the linking word 'and finally') - to which you should have replied, which you avoided doing.
These are theories of MOG, of M. Reuter and H. Weyer, and some theories from the field of string theory (M theory to be more precise).
In light of the existence of these theories, do you still seriously claim that a gravitation theory (or a theory of a gravitational nature) that is compatible with the findings, including the slingshot cluster findings, has not been demonstrated?
wonder!
In light of these things, it is quite clear that the scientific community is indeed aware of acceptable and plausible alternative theories, and in any case not disproved, that deny the necessity or even the necessity of the dark matter hypothesis.
And note also that no one in the scientific community claims that there is direct evidence for the existence of dark matter!
And with respect to you, and with all due respect to your knowledge and skills (which are certainly many and appreciated) - after all, no one from the scientific community intended to agree or disagree with any of us, and don't turn the discussion between us into something personal; Science is science is science, not a matter of feminine emotions.
Happy holiday.
Ori:
Indeed you asked a complete question.
The answer is no.
The dark matter is not supposed to hide anything.
But in order to understand this, you need to understand what dark matter is and since I have already referred in this conversation to detailed explanations about it, I understand that you simply prefer to talk about it without understanding what it is, so I won't bother you with that.
For comparison with the same astronomer - funny!
After all, he is the father of the scientific method and those who opposed him were not scientists but religious people.
Long live the little difference!
I want to say something about all those who join Judah in their opposition to science:
In my opinion, everything is a result of laziness!
You see that science has already managed to discover a lot and that you need to learn a lot to really deal with it, so you decide that in order to jump headfirst it's better to try to convince everyone that it's all nonsense.
You have no reasons, so you use brainwashing techniques and personal attacks.
I come back and suggest you all read the book "The Revolt of the Masses" in which the philosopher Jose Ortega y Gast predicted you in advance.
Yehuda:
No need to wait for the future.
The past has already said this many times.
Because that's how I'm sure we'll remain divided in the future as well.
What is certain is that my way of drawing conclusions led me to better places than the ones your way of drawing conclusions led you to.
Eddie:
I quoted the things correctly and you - despite the extensive quotes - did not point to any alternative theory.
The theories you pointed to are the popular theories hidden by the findings described.
I, by the way, maintained a correspondence - both with the inventor of MOND (Milgrom) and with Beckenstein.
None of them denied the existence of the dark matter and Bekenstein even admitted that its existence is implied by the findings.
He only claimed that he believed dark matter was bully.
When I asked him how he explained the Bullet Cluster he was speechless.
I still ask that you demonstrate a theory of gravitation that is consistent with the findings.
You can invite readers to draw conclusions. I call them too.
What is clear is that the scientific community agrees with me.
Michael Rothschild,
The previous comment (88) is directed at you.
I find no point in repeating my previous claims again, in response to your words in response 64.
Your claims and mine speak for themselves, and I don't belong to immigration. I invite the readers to review them and judge, each according to the honesty of his understanding.
But I do wish to add to my argument about the existence of plausible physical theories that offer alternative explanations for the fantastic novelty of 'dark matter', as I consider this a point of extreme importance.
In response 64 you claim:
"In relation to the fact that "all explanations are ruled out" - the situation is very clear. The unpopular forms of these theories are unpopular because they are ruled out even without this evidence.
You are welcome to propose an alternative theory, as mentioned, and then we will have something to talk about. I have no interest in statistical information about unfounded theories."
In my opinion, apart from not quoting correctly (and I assume it's just a mistake), you also missed the proper understanding of the phrase "unpopular forms of extended Newtonian theories".
I will quote from the link you provided in link 37:
A proposed alternative to physical dark matter particles has been to suppose that the observed inconsistencies are due to an incomplete understanding of gravitation. To explain the observations, the gravitational force has to become stronger than the Newtonian approximation at great distances or in weak fields. One of the proposed models is Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND), which adjusts Newton's laws at small acceleration. However, constructing a relativistic MOND theory has been troublesome, and it is not clear how the theory can be reconciled with gravitational lensing measurements of the deflection of light around galaxies
And now:
The leading relativistic MOND theory, proposed by Jacob Bekenstein in 2004 is called TeVeS for Tensor-Vector-Scalar and solves many of the problems of earlier attempts. However, a study in August 2006 reported an observation of a pair of colliding galaxy clusters whose behavior, it was claimed, was not compatible with any current modified gravity theories.[24]
And finally:
In 2007, John W. Moffatt proposed a theory of modified gravity (MOG) based on the Nonsymmetric Gravitational Theory (NGT) that claims to account for the behavior of colliding galaxies.[25]
In another class of theories one attempts to reconcile gravitation with quantum mechanics and obtains corrections to the conventional gravitational interaction. In scalar-tensor theories, scalar fields like the Higgs field couple to the curvature given through the Riemann tensor or its traces. In many such theories, the scalar field equals the inflaton field, which is needed to explain the inflation of the universe after the Big Bang, as the dominating factor of the quintessence or Dark Energy. Using an approach based on the exact renormalization group, M. Reuter and H. Weyer have shown[26] that Newton's constant and the cosmological constant can be scalar functions on spacetime if one associates renormalization scales to the points of spacetime. Some M-Theory cosmologists also propose that multi-dimensional forces from outside the visible universe have gravitational effects on the visible universe meaning that dark matter is not necessary for a unified theory of cosmology.
According to the above, it is possible to understand the link you provided in response 45:
The Bullet cluster is one of the hottest known clusters of galaxies. Observed from Earth, the subcluster passed through the cluster center 150 million years ago creating a "bow-shaped shock wave located near the right side of the cluster" formed as "70 million degree Celsius gas in the sub-cluster plowed through 100 million degree Celsius gas in the main cluster at a speed of about 6 million miles per hour".[4][5][6] Strictly speaking, the name Bullet cluster refers to the smaller subcluster, moving away from the larger one.
It provides the best current evidence for the nature of dark matter[7] and provides "evidence against some of the more popular versions of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)" as applied to large galactic clusters.
As we know, in English the word "popular" has more than one meaning. Here it comes in the sense of "common", that is: simple, rough, mass.
Hence, the more popular forms of extended Newtonian theories, which should be questioned in light of the findings concerning the projectile cluster - are only the simpler ones - which is why they are 'more popular' - and not the ones considered to be more sophisticated and higher quality. These theories are certainly not ruled out.
And as we see, these theories, as well as other theories that are not from the field of gravity, constitute - each one in itself - an available and reasonable explanation for the problems known in astrophysics that gave rise to the dark matter hypothesis in the first place (mainly non-bryonic matter), and reconcile the indirect evidence said to point to 'dark matter' '; And they are superior to the dark matter hypothesis - precisely because they are standard; And since they invite us to obey the principle of Ockham's razor and simple logic in general, in the absence of any direct evidence for the existence of dark matter (and as your link explicitly states - indeed there is no such direct evidence).
Now, when it is quite clear that the dark matter hypothesis is not necessary, is not necessarily preferred, and is not sufficiently based from an observational point of view, - it seems to me, that we have 'something to talk about'...
To Michael
You and I are very far apart in the conclusions we draw from data in the field, so I have also lost the will to try to convince you. Let's let each one live his own truth and the future will tell who is right between the two of us.
Also, please don't accuse me of misleading my friends. It's a cheap diversion.
Laurie
Before others correct you, let me correct you.
Copernicus went against the popular opinion of the church. He claimed that the sun is in the center and the earth rotates contrary to the opinion of the church and the ancient sages Halami and Aristotle who claimed that the earth is in the center.
Regarding normal (baryonic) dark matter such as dust from stars, planets and all kinds of other tiny bodies, they can only be enough for a tiny part of the mass required according to Newton. So the thing cannot be in place, there is still a lot of mass missing.
And in addition, Uri, take into account that now you may be hit on the head from any direction because your opinion is contrary to the consensus. Be strong and courageous!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
First - Tamm's question - isn't the black matter supposed to 'hide' about a fifth of the universe? Are there known regions of the universe that you cannot see through or that it seems like there is nothing there?
Second - regarding the debate between the friends, as a supporter of Yehuda's approach, I would suggest that Michael and the others who hold his opinion remember how they treated that astronomer from about 400 years ago who one day decided to reverse the order of the world and state that the stars do not move around the earth but that all the planets move around the sun? He also supposedly waged a war of attrition against the Copernican theory and its ilk which were accepted at the time by the church that controlled everything. I guess he also suffered from curses and claims as if he was the deceiver.
In general, what I am trying to say is that there are really knowledgeable and educated people here, from whose comments I learn a lot and expand my knowledge, but this does not mean that those scholars have the right to dismiss legitimate opinions, all in the name of the education and knowledge they acquired in these years of study.
There is a substance that everyone knows is dark (it does not emit strong energy like our sun) and therefore cannot be seen from great distances (almost). Could it not provide the explanation for the missing mass in the universe?
Yehuda:
You are wrong and misleading.
The need for the dark energy does not arise from the existence of the dark mass and it is needed without anything to do with it.
Did you really not know that or are you just delusional?
The size of the deviation only indicates the amount of dark mass. If there is already dark mass - by what authority do you want me to decide that there can't be a lot of it?
I get tired of repeating that we have an example of an entire galaxy operating according to the laws of general relativity without the help of dark matter and allowing us to conclude that there is no dark matter in this galaxy.
What you call "my problem" is "the problem of all scientists" and this is just an example of the disdain I was talking about.
Not Ben Ner
If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to announce it solemnly with joy and happiness and I'll invite you and Michael and maybe a few others for a glass of beer.
But remember that proof of the existence of the dark mass needs to be found. A casual particle that he finds, will not necessarily prove it. By the way, my idea also requires a lot of tiny particles, but they are thugs and join the billions that already exist.
I'm not saying what will happen if the opposite is true because unfortunately the opposite is already with us and those who really want to see it. It's that Michael doesn't understand how a XNUMX percent error in the mass measurements is a serious deviation in the results that were supposed to be obtained by the formula - Zebsho!!
And it doesn't bother him that to the solution of a thousand percent addition, another unusual solution of miraculous dark energy must be added that can cancel the previous solution where necessary to speed up the universe - again Zebsho!!!
Come on
We go to the Astronomical Society like every Thursday
Bye
Yehuda
Yehuda Sabdarmish
A theoretical, hypothetical question, which can in a short time become actual:
According to what was reported in the article (yes, there was an article), it is expected that within a few months
The results of the Wimp's measurement by the "scintillator-bolometer" will be received.
It is clear that if the measurement results do not confirm, in a clear way, the existence of Wimp's, you will claim that justice is with you and that dark matter does not exist (although as I already explained in my previous response No. 00 even then, in my opinion, you are wrong) but... It will be reported that, the measurement findings clearly support the existence of Wimp's?
There are of course two options:
One - that you stick to your current position, which denies the existence of Wimp's, and denial
the scientific validity of the measurements (as Eddie hinted at this position in his response #56).
The second - admit your mistake. If that is the case, then you are already found to be wrong, and this is because the test, the experiment, must be carried out, regardless
for the final result.
Michael,
Indeed, that's why I mentioned that the uniformity of the laws is a ** fruitful ** idea.
It is possible even today to assume, for example, that the rate of radioactive decay was different 1000 years ago, even more different 5,000 years ago, thus proving that the world was created about 6000 years ago. It is not possible to prove that such an assumption is incorrect, that's why I used the word "preference".
(By the way, the Lubavitcher Rebbe used this argument to prove that what is written in the Bible is indeed accurate, and it should be noted that this is one of the more sophisticated arguments on this topic).
Noam:
I must remark that our preferences do not determine what is really happening in the world.
If the formulas change then the one we prefer otherwise will not change that.
The point is, however, that the laws have never been shown to change.
Another matter - more similar to the matter of your preferences is that in a world where the laws change there is no point in engaging in science because the whole point of laws is to be able to apply them and if they change from place to place or from time to time then they are in fact not laws at all.
Yehuda:
I can't believe you really don't get it.
No problem was found if the gravity formulas.
All in all, a problem was discovered with the possibility of predicting the phenomena based on the following two data:
1. The gravitation formulas
2. The amount of visible mass.
The gravitation formulas have been confirmed by many tests.
What was not confirmed even by one test is the assumption that we see the whole mass.
Therefore - when combining the two figures leads to a contradiction - which figure is more suspicious?
Of course the suspicion falls on our ability to see the whole mass.
As I have said many times - this suspicion has proven itself to be justified countless times and led to the discovery of many stars.
The suspicion of the gravity formulas has not yielded anything yet.
Again - this is not about sanctity, but about the lack of an alternative.
When will you understand?
When I talked about flying, I didn't talk about you, but now you have really justified this title.
Yehuda Sabdarmish,
You wrote "like seeing what ants do and deciding that this is how the moon also moves" to strengthen your claim that it is absurd to think that Newton's formula for gravitation, which is correct in our solar system, will also be correct in the distant galaxies.
Well, it is known that the atoms that make up the ants on Earth are exactly the same as the atoms that make up the galaxies - or is that an absurd assumption too?
Newton's real greatness was precisely the understanding that the laws of nature are true both for a falling apple and for calculating the orbits of the planets.
It is now known that the theory of relativity is more accurate than Newton's formula, but not because Newton's formula is correct here and incorrect there - it is equally correct both here and there.
The idea that the laws of nature are uniform everywhere in the universe is a very fruitful idea, which has led to endless discoveries in cosmology.
Personally, I prefer to search for missing material somewhere in the universe, than operate in a world where formulas / laws of nature are correct here and not there, the speed of light was once different and will continue to change, the rate of radioactive decay changes with time, etc., etc.
But of course this is just my subjective preference.
Hello Michael number two, I haven't heard from you in a while.
Is there a reason you are implying to me that I am flying?? Why am I flying because my opinions differ from yours? don't start
We will move on to the eyes of holiness
Those who think that dark mass should be added do so because the situation in the spiral galaxy does not correspond to the amount of mass required according to Newton's formula, and then you can do two things: either throw away Newton's formula and look for another formula that is more suitable for measurements, or consecrate Newton's formula to decide that it is definitely, definitely, definitely correct, and then To put up with what is missing - mass, and the fact that we don't see it? So what?...
I have a simple rule in science, "If something doesn't fit measurements then... it doesn't fit me either."
Tell me, Michael, would you agree to invent dark mass if Newton's formula was invented by Sabdarmish, or the pickle seller from the Mahane Yehuda market?, or would you send us both "politely" to hell. Don't you feel that what was done here is changing the universe for Newton? Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you? Newton didn't even know galaxies. Don't you think there was something to be said about delegating the formula to a billion-fold erasers? It's like watching what ants do and deciding that's how they move the moon This is really ridiculous!!!!
Don't you see that the formula is sanctified here instead of the data?
Does anyone think like me that here the formula is preferred over the data?
If no one sees this I will apologize to you all and shut up
What is holiness if not to bend the entire universe around the formula that was drawn from some dark corner of our spiral galaxy three hundred and fifty years ago?
Get out of it Michael, throw away the formula that will be the chicken for atonements that you slaughtered. better late than never
I'm tired, bye bye
Sabdarmish Yehda
And I also explained that, in my opinion, the proper human relations towards those who despise others are relations of contempt.
And I explained that this is exactly what I do.
I maintain proper human relations to begin with and I have never said anything bad to anyone for making a mistake.
The point is that you don't correctly identify the "to begin with".
When a person's statement expresses disdain for others from the outset - the response to it should not be seen as "to begin with".
You just don't have to!
You know what, you're right! The allusion to "damaged and scarred" was completely out of place and to the point - I accept the correct criticism.
As for the dark energies - they are not only yours, there are other partners in crime and they are also an existing fact here that cannot be denied!
Now, taking what I said about human relations and mixing everything together is simply missing the point - my intention is that proper human relations must be maintained in the debate from the start, which will prevent such awkward situations from happening in the first place!
Best regards,
Uncle
Here, David, you too.
In your first response to me you spoke (with great respect, of course) about my dark energies that are trying to suppress Or Yehuda.
You tried to make a stupid insinuation that I was hurt and scarred and you also wanted me to accept that as an expression of respect.
And here - in your last comment you drive me to the wall.
Like the man from the parable - the first time I gave you the five shekels you asked for and ignored the fact that you are using unjustified verbal violence towards me in the very same response where you ask me to stop the justified verbal violence, but now this is the second time so I ask you to move to the next table.
Uncle:
I've been around long enough to know that the strategy you're proposing not only doesn't work, it reinforces the ignorant and confuses the uninitiated.
I have already told the story about the man who was approached by a beggar.
I will repeat it again:
A man is sitting in a restaurant when a beggar approaches him and asks for five shekels.
The man gives him five shekels and the beggar moves to the next table.
This is how the beggar goes from table to table and gets a lot of high fives.
So he returns to the first table and asks for five shekels again.
The man tells him that he has given him enough.
The beggar curses him and his mother, spits on his plate and moves to the next table.
The man at the next table is more forgiving and gives him another five shekels.
The beggar moves to the next table and at the end of the round starts again.
The man at the other table tries again to calm him down with five shekels.
In the next round the man from the other table has already broken down and tells the beggar that he has given him enough.
The beggar curses him and his mother, spits on his plate and moves to the next table.
I hope you understand the parable.
Well, I realized I was talking to a wall.
All the best to you Michael.
Yehuda:
You are not the only one and I am dealing with many flyers here who are all the masses from Ortega's "Mass Rebellion".
Therefore I also receive many hostile responses and unfortunately you allow yourself to base your statistics on my behavior on these responses.
Regarding your other words in the last response - no one gives sanctity to the word. Get this nonsense out of your head and see how your whole life will change.
Among other things - you will no longer have to struggle with that imaginary sanctity and therefore you will not have to reveal the fact that you actually have no argument.
After all, what you are simply saying is that you do not like a proposed explanation for the observations. Beauty. We've heard this a thousand times, but you should know that "pleasing Judah" is not a consideration that science considers relevant.
You did not point to any error in the way the conclusions were drawn, you did not point to any finding that contradicted them and you did not offer a better explanation. In short - you didn't say anything, but you repeat your steam at every opportunity.
To eliminate the darkness, it is enough to light a small candle.
God bless you, you are a big light (xenon) and not a small candle!
Add light! - Respond positively! - Explain better the correct explanation (in your opinion!) - Ignore stupid answers (in your opinion!) - Let the readers judge for themselves when they read your reasoned and to-the-point answer (and most importantly - pleasant to read!) versus stupid answers (in your opinion!) - after all, in the end You cannot decide for the readers what they will ultimately believe and what they will be convinced of!
Best regards,
Uncle
Dear Michael
I imagine that I have moderated but it seems to me mainly from the comments of others that you still have to moderate.
I already know you and am ready to absorb "a little" as it may be from you as well.
I will only point out that the debate with you is fruitful for me.
Unfortunately, there are things you still think about me, such as, that I underestimate all the achievements of science. And that is not true. I do not underestimate even the tsevki who was the first to invent the "scientific achievement" of the dark mass.
I simply do not agree with the sanctity they have given to the laws of gravity from which everything originates - dark mass and dark energy.
Have a good day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Uncle:
You are indeed flattering me, but you are welcome to watch the psychological analyzes that people try to do to me when they are unable to deal with my factual arguments.
I respect everyone who respects others, and when someone proves that he is not like that, I think the only way to return him to the beneficiary is to taste his dishes.
Nor is every opinion entitled to respect.
When a person allows himself to cut down the achievements of brilliant people who devoted many years of study and research just because he knows how to use a keyboard and without having invested anything in the study - his very presumptuousness is a despicable contempt for others and for that he deserves every reproach.
But why do you stoop to such a level?
Michael, I read a lot of your comments, you are a brilliant person above your age (I think by all opinions here) - as one of the leaders here on the site (yes, your activity commenting on the site brings you to this mandatory status that is necessary), I expect you to behave accordingly also in the aspect of human relations On the website -
1. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion (even if it is complete nonsense according to others), and this is legitimate - no one here is the thought police.
2. Address each other politely and respectfully, and without sarcasm (nor is it implicit or clever).
3. Everyone should try to compliment the other, especially on points where there is agreement. Where there is disagreement - it is possible to argue but with mutual tolerance and with respect!
I think that if there is some sort of code of conduct on the site, it will be much more pleasant for everyone and I'm sure it will also be much more rewarding - today you are drowning each other's heads in the water instead of helping each other and swimming together.
"Keep your tongue from evil, turn away from evil and do only good, ask for peace and pursue it"
Uncle:
You don't know what you are talking about.
Yehuda talked about the fact that he was running under fire and I simply explained to him what causes him to feel this way.
This is a fact backed by a long history of debates between us - a history during which he learned to moderate his speech a little and gradually stopped calling me all kinds of derogatory names, but it is all based on his disdain for all the achievements of science and scientists.
Dear Yehuda,
Please allow me to share with you - there is dark energy! She exists!
where is the proof - Read the comments here on the website, and see how much bad (dark) energy is invested here!
I'm just getting tired of reading the bickering and insulting comments here! Where do people get so much energy to invest in arguing with so many people and broadly in so many different articles?
So much power for complete waste?!
Michael - "The very fact that you prefer to shoot at the fortress here and not in a real scientific paper says it all." - Why so? Why hurt and insult? Are you such a hurt, disgruntled and scarred person that you cut other people's flesh like that?
How much energy do you put into endless arguments with the whole world and her sister? And all this for what? You're just getting the opposite of what you're striving for, don't you realize that?
Society - mutual respect and tolerance for each other, everyone here is human with feelings, not sealed machines!!!
Best regards,
Uncle
Eddie:
There is a great deal of evidence for the existence of dark matter and I have already mentioned many times that this type of evidence (actually much less serious evidence because it only involves changes in the acceleration of a single star and not in gravitational acceleration and changes in the acceleration of an entire galaxy) is used by us day and night to discover planets outside the solar system.
There is less evidence that it is not a bully substance but, as mentioned, there is also quite a bit of evidence for that.
At the moment - dark matter is the only explanation we have found for the multitude of findings.
If you want to say that you doubt its existence - you are simply saying something meaningless because there is doubt in the existence of everything.
If you want to say something meaningful - you must offer an alternative explanation that is at least not hidden by the findings.
The definition of WIMPS is "massive particles that react weakly (among themselves and with bully particles)". That's the definition and that's all it takes for matter to be dark.
Therefore, they cannot be found to be particles that are not dark matter because any particle found that does not fulfill the requirements of dark matter cannot be a WIMP either.
now:
It is possible that at some future time some type of reaction or noticeable non-gravitational effect of particles classified as WIMPS will be discovered.
This will probably also be an effect that we have not measured regarding the intergalactic dark matter as well.
The probability of this seems really zero to me, but if it happens, it will provide us with a way to check whether the WIMPS constitute a significant part of the intergalactic dark matter or not.
If such an effect is not discovered (which, in my opinion, is much more likely) we will never be able to test it.
Now - think about the evidence you point to for the existence of different materials in the universe.
These evidences are merely spectra of electromagnetic radiation.
It is really no more significant than the effect of the dark matter on stellar acceleration and gravitational cooling.
Regarding the fact that "all explanations are ruled out" - the situation is very clear. The unpopular forms of these theories are unpopular because they are ruled out even without this evidence.
You are welcome to propose an alternative theory, as mentioned, and then we will have something to talk about. I have no interest in statistical information about unfounded theories.
Yehuda:
You're just chatting.
Can you tell me exactly which innovative outfit you prefer?
You don't have any clothes to offer and all the ones you tried in the past proved to be a flower crow even before you offered them and even before you were born.
The deviation percentages have no meaning here. If it is a lot of dark matter then it causes big deviations.
Beyond that, as mentioned, there is also the independent evidence of gravitational cooling.
By the way - sometimes the deviations are enormous also in the matter of the discovery of the stars.
You only referred to the discovery of planets in our solar system, but beyond the fact that you ignored planets in other solar systems, you also ignore the fact that black stars (which for you I will just call them extremely massive stars that do not radiate) were discovered - even though no one saw them - only because they saw that other stars were affected from them gravitationally (sometimes to such an extent that their trajectories look as if they hit a wall and were returned from it in a very narrow ellipse).
questionnaire:
I will not cooperate with your pathetic efforts to turn the discussion into a discussion about me.
If you don't understand what I wrote, it seems to me a shame to spend more time on you.
For everything I say - whether it's expressing an opinion or whether it's avoiding expressing an opinion while citing the fact that I don't have enough information, you're trying to find a hidden motive that doesn't exist.
If you think I'm hiding behind the intelligence of others I can't help but pity you because the inability to recognize intelligence in others is one of the most striking manifestations of lack of intelligence.
Yehuda:
You don't run under fire.
You simply shoot fire at a well-built fortress and absorb only the ricochets.
The fortress wall is not damaged at all and what comes back to you are your bullets.
The mere fact that you prefer to shoot the fort here rather than in a real scientific paper says it all.
to the questionnaire
Regarding the "exploration of nature on a personal basis"
Let's say that the beginning of the research can be done on the basis of personal ideas, but in the end we must strive for a certain agreement at least on the part of the academy.
An excellent example of this is the evolution that came to Darwin's mind and for twenty years he kept it closed in a drawer. Its importance only began when he decided to publish it.
You are right that much of my understanding belongs to me, indeed, the disagreement with the dark mass also belongs to others in the academy, but the opinion that gavitation actually fades away completely at the great distances of the galaxies and the universe is only my understanding and I have "copyright" on it, let's hope that this understanding is also correct.
Your description of me running under fire really matches how I feel, but these are nice experiences!
What does bother me is insulting disrespect from certain commenters and offensive from others so that sometimes I don't feel like responding because I don't want tens of thousands to read that someone thinks I'm stupid or something like that. It ruins your mood. I don't want to fight, be under fire - I agree!, take insulting insults and the like.
Take for example the two sides of Michael's behavior (whom we all know and even generally appreciate).
The first side in which he attacks my opinion, and his words - words for girls!, the answer to which requires a great intellectual effort. Then comes Michael number two who is blatantly insulting and impatient, and not just me, why? Because it's Michael.
But apart from that we are friends (right Michael?)
Good day Alon and let's continue our research method. At least we will be at peace with ourselves.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Thank you Yehuda for agreeing to verify things from the ground up.
And in general the study of nature should be done on a personal basis, just like a true artist creates
his works from his perception and understanding of reality (not like most of the art
the contemporary one that deals with imitations), so also a researcher has to build his own understanding
Even if it conflicts with what is accepted (which takes time and above all courage).
In any case, it seems to me that much of your understanding really belongs to you (and indeed
to Wikipedia or other sources), so take it further (even though it
It's hard to run under fire.
Successfully
The irony is that once the ether (aether) was disqualified for kosher reasons and now it is back out the door
The rear as "dark matter", "dark energy". Only then he was the medium on which the waves are carried
the electromagnetic and today he came to plug holes that are possible only with the help of mathematics
"To understand them".
To prove in a negative way the existence of a substance, force or phenomenon, this is not a proof but a leap over
The questions relevant to the topic. In this case the questions are: 1. What allows magnetic waves
(not electromagnetic), move forward in the universe? 2. What is the source of gravity and what is mechanics
The internal and the relationships between masses, gravitational forces and magnetic fields? 3. What is electricity made of,
And what is the atom made of?
And this brings us to a human and strange phenomenon: "If we have not been able to understand its content, let us
This was determined by his external behavior and character." Newton for example, found several laws of motion
And Masa even managed to squeeze them into equations, but he knew he didn't touch on "Why is this so?"
And what are the active factors behind the phenomena he studied. Therefore he also expressed his power
of gravity by movement, mass and speed and not by explaining how it is created and works - and that's it
In other words, skipping the point……
Maxwell for example who studied magnetism, electricity, light and ether. It's nice that he came out
With four equations that to this day can be used for technologies, but he skipped their essence
and their basic components.
And it didn't bother the researchers who came after him, on the contrary, now they were left with laws
"that work" but without particles, and in order to fill the gap, they began to try to observe particles
which will behave according to his formulas (and this is already a mistake after a mistake...). Then the researchers realized that my
who discovers a new particle, will automatically receive a Nobel Prize and will be remembered in the pages of history (but this
Only the gossipy side of the matter).
This is how a new method was actually created: if we haven't found the foundation stones of the phenomenon, let's complete it
you're missing. If the atom needs to be rebuilt, let's find what's inside it and name them
in the names As soon as a particle is given a name - it means that we understand it (something that will ensure income).
for many years).
And at the same time a new industry also arose: the construction of measuring instruments that would provide many observations
and more precise, which we will publish according to rules of conduct. And so, once and for all it won't be
The need to find the foundation stones, because we are actually building a science based on laws
External and incredibly mathematical behavior (the third mistake and the foundation for dream physics).
Later: how things unfolded and the "reverse method" (we will also go through dark matter...lol)
Good night/morning
For a long time, there has not been such a lively discussion and such decisive differences of opinion. It seems possible
To do research here on different types of people much more than on dim substances.
Anyway, if you don't know what dark matter is anymore, then at least make a little happy,
blow up balloons blow up other people's balloons…….
Mr. Rothschild,
I would be interested in hearing your private opinion and understanding on the subject, as I requested
Previously on the subject of the color of Mars. Your response then was "I have no special understanding of the subject, I
He feeds like you on the news that is published about him." I do not and had no intention of failing
you, but to stand on the nature of your private understanding and see what you bring with you "from home".
I don't understand why you often send us to links, articles and theories that have been made
in the hands of others and should represent your own understanding. Is it because you are not carrying this cargo?
Or because it's convenient for you to hide behind others who seem seemingly intelligent and you are
Want to show that because you agree with them, you are also intelligent? Or maybe you have
A private understanding and you don't have the courage to bring it to the table because you will have to fight for it?
Maybe you can explain?
What completes the picture is your focus on "what not", what is not necessary, what "you don't know
What to think", why other people's questions are not essential, what is not true, including experience
"To lower your head to anyone who dares to bring his private opinion with him, from your dignified position
well in the ground. And nav is done in a blatantly humiliating way, in order to make the other party look like an idiot
Perfect, regardless of the purpose of this forum - to allow freedom of thought and expression on issues
Interesting science that the owner of the house chose to bring (at least it is so according to my understanding).
Do you have an explanation for this?
To Michael
What are you comparing the dark mass to a distant cult that has not seen it. There was an inaccuracy of two parts of a percent in the data that resulted in the reality of Neptune due to the deviations of Uranus and Pluto due to the deviations of Neptune.
I repeat - the deviations were really tiny!
And by the way, they even invented Vulcan to fit the very tiny deviation of the planet Mercury, which was eventually explained differently. But in the spiral galaxies Michael Yadidi (we are friends, yes?) it is a deviation of a thousand percent, results that are tenfold, that all the black holes, interstellar dust, brown dwarfs, planets, comets, M/Vs, etc., constitute at best only a few percent of the lack , so what about the rest?, we are still left with close to a thousand percent. If it was about a deviation of a few percent I would argue?
That's why I came to the understanding that there is a psychological and perhaps cowardly adherence to a formula that is proven at best only in the solar system, that is for distances of one millionth of the distances of the spiral galaxies and one trillionth of the distances in the universe, so really Michael and others, let's be brave, throw this formula away and look for something else to move the galaxies. My suggestion about the pressure differences in the different concentrations of the particles moving in the universe (and there are many, many such) is logical and will not require further inventing the dark energy - a "miraculous" creation of the void which is also not found.
And with a smile we will return to the story of Hans Christian. I'm ready to reach a compromise:- Let's fix it for a debate on what to wear the king to the national ball, whether a garment that is accepted by everyone even if it is dirty and smelly or a new garment that is not sure how it will be received.
You, Michael, prefer the conventional clothing even though it is dirty and I am willing to take a risk regarding an innovative garment (for two reasons XNUMX. The king is not allowed to wear dirty clothes and XNUMX. - Well, well, this is the garment I sewed!)
I will not respond to response 55 of Mr. Nibara. She is not worth commenting on
And thanks to Uri for his encouraging response. Just look at what poor responses I have to come across and deal with sometimes.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I actually tend to think and agree with Yehuda, even if it is not popular and accepted in the circle of learned scholars.
My inclination stems from several reasons:
1. Even the naked king was offered invisible fabrics and designs that theoretically were supposed to be there and all the viewers in those clothes did not dare to say the simple truth that they saw nothing.
2. Why call something that is known by one name by other names - why call all the non-luminous matter (planets like the planets in our solar system and the intergalactic and intergalactic gas) - why invent all this invisible mass with the explosive and mysterious name - 'dark matter'. Nothing is not clear to anyone who reads the discussion here that around every star in the universe there are various belts and different planets that surround it and are not particularly visible?
3. Why are we not surprised by the fact that we even manage to see gas clouds of unimaginable sizes of tens of light years and more and yet they are visible (how much light and energy do we have to invest in order for us to see them).
And at the end of the day, simple theories will probably be much more powerful than complicated theories full of perceptual and logical holes and that is what is being done with this dark hole of dark matter.
Good night…
And Sabdarmish says - keep kicking the conventions, at the end of the day, if the theory is correct you will only strengthen the proof of its correctness and certainly not damage it.
Michael Rothschild,
Regarding the link you provided in response 45:
In the item referring to H.S. 8, it is not that all alternative explanations are ruled out. It is about some of the more popular forms of the extended Newtonian theories.
Michael Rothschild:
That's right - we didn't see an 'electron'. But we certainly have his visual similes, and an abundance of direct and well-verified scientific findings interspersed with a coherent and coherent theory that enables prediction at an excellent level. Therefore the electron 'exists', and its 'nature' is known. There is no absolute knowledge here (just as there is no absolute knowledge regarding any field in our lives), but there is knowledge here with a level of certainty sufficient for scientific needs and every practical need. In this respect and in this limited meaning - it is something that is 'proven'.
Not so with dark matter. On him there is only indirect and circumstantial evidence. Even if someone claims (as you claim) that the difference between the electron and the dark matter is only quantitative - it is clear that beyond a certain level of 'signs' the quantitative difference becomes qualitative - since an acceptable theory can be created based on it. The electron has reached this level - the dark matter - no, since we do not know any direct factual information about it. Its very existence is a hypothesis. At best it can be the so-called 'inference to the best explanation' - but not even that - since according to the broad meaning of the principle of Ockham's razor (Michael, you like this principle, I know...) in the absence of solid evidence we must strive for simpler and less daring explanations , if they are possible in principle, and to the best of my knowledge there are three alternative explanations (one of them is that of our own Yaakov Bekenstein), simpler and less daring, but reasonable, for solving the same problems that need an explanation in our issue (the problem of the structures and the problem of the speed at the edges of a galaxy). In a certain dialogue between us in the past (around the article End of thought in action first, I think) I wanted to prove that the principle of Ockham's razor is not imperative, and I brought evidence for this from different fields of science. Here, in my opinion, it is appropriate to adopt the principle, since it is a matter of choosing between a mere expansion of existing theories and a factual innovation, which is almost a guess, and in any case - fantastic and mysterious.
It is not out of the question to mention that in the history of science we have already known a kind of 'substances' that at the time were 'the inference to the best explanation' - and evaporated as if they were not. The last of these was the famous 'ether' which was badly confused and deposed in the Michelson Morley experiment. But the well-remembered 'phlogiston' also belongs to this illusory class, together with some other lovable 'materials', older than them. I see it as a reasonable possibility that the 'dark matter' will also follow the path of all these substances, and we can quietly close its case and file it on the shelf of history.
In a framed article, this may also be the fate of the Higgs boson, which is also currently (and for too long, actually) in the status of 'the inference to the best explanation', and has yet to be discovered in practice. There is the possibility that at the unprecedentedly high energies that will be used at the Sarn in Switzerland, it will finally be discovered, but it is worth noting that the energies there will not be of a different order of magnitude, but only a few tens of percent higher than what has already been used in other large accelerators. So it is possible that in Switzerland we will receive (or more precisely - we will not receive) 'more of the same'. Somewhere, if it is not discovered - the mystery of creation will intensify, and physics will be even more interesting. This is also a gain…
And as for those things from your words that were 'very clear' in your eyes: even if we assume that the detector will detect WIMPS particles - there is still no conclusive evidence regarding the existence of that dark matter that is supposed to be in intergalactic space. This discovery can only be evidence that the radiation of particles as mentioned above exists, and that it may have something to do with some 'unknown substance'. But in order to prove that the same substance is the same 'dark matter' that is supposed to exist in the intergalactic space and explains the two problems mentioned above - additional, more direct evidence is needed. Only if there is such evidence - then we can say that we know something about its existence and nature at the level of theory and we can say that we have solved the relevant problems in the field of astrophysics. If we come to this, it is very possible that it will then turn out that, apart from its gravitational property, the dark matter has several other properties, which are not demonstrated at all by the WIMP particles, and perhaps - in an extreme case - those properties of the dark matter will be found to be contradictory or incompatible with any parameters of those particles . In short, the discovery of WIMPS particles, if it does happen (and I am personally somewhat satisfied with that) - still does not provide the goods required to solve the difficult problems in the field of astrophysics.
Michael, you don't seriously mean that in order to obtain more direct findings about the dark matter supposed to be in intergalactic space - we have to actually go to it. We know some important things based on stars more than 13 billion light years away even though we have not been and probably never will be there in any known physical way; This is because some of us have sufficient intelligence and we have also learned to build suitable equipment... and if we want we will also solve the unsolved problems related to the dark matter hypothesis, provided that we are careful to conduct ourselves correctly and test all the options, and not only those that excite the imagination with their audacity. Finally it is about physics, serious science.
Yael, by all means, listen to Michael R. In the end, he is the only sane voice here in a raging sea of arrogant and infantile rants of self-proclaimed sages. I understand that this site is a magnet for all kinds of wierdies that nothing in the world will convince them of their stupidity and stubbornness, but you?
A. Ben-Ner:
I don't understand why you reopened the topic.
Did you read the alternative story I suggested (response 27)?
now tell me
Let's say a person from the settlement reads the original story and the alternative story I suggested in the news - which story will he believe?
Of course he will believe my story because the king's new clothes is a fantasy story for children and nothing else.
Indeed - also in the present case - the parable I gave is more appropriate than Andersen's fantasy.
Yehuda loves the attrition method, so every time he thinks he's talking to someone who hasn't heard the answers his claims have already received - he brings up the same claims again.
He knows that Einstein's theory of gravity has not been disproved (and what was disproved is actually the theory according to which all the matter in the universe is visible) and he also knows that this method of discovering a mass that was until now "dark" through its gravitational effects has been used many times - both to discover planets in our solar system and for the discovery of planets in other solar systems.
For some reason he is willing to accept these revelations and does not propose to change the gravitation formulas.
Even if he was not aware of it in the first place, today - after I have pointed it out to him probably more than ten times, he is already aware of it, and therefore ignoring it is the result of a free choice.
To the supplier:
Some kind of wise man - one who learns from experience (and some extenders say - one who learns from the experience of others).
Yael was already in this movie and could learn.
I was too and I learned.
There are those who are not surprised by the fact that they themselves and others react to things that neither they nor they read but are surprised that they comment on it and call it "religious fanaticism".
Nothing - from the fact that you just attacked me and didn't say anything about the matter itself, I tend to believe that this time she read and understood what I wrote.
It's just a shame that she thought these were my positions and not information that appears on Wikipedia.
Lesbadramish Yehuda
You are right because when the theory does not fit the observation then, maybe the theory is not correct. Emphasis on the word A and L Y.
But, there is one more, no less important and it is……..
Or does the observation not provide all the relevant information and therefore, it is necessary to refine and make the observation more accurate? This is the situation before us regarding gravity.
Where do you have the absolute confidence that, in the astronomical observations, the amount of mass can be correctly estimated, only based on the AM radiation? the measured? On what basis do you completely rule out the possibility of the existence of a mass that does not emit AM? ? There are many examples of different types of mass, bully, that does not radiate AM... for example black holes, for example planets moving around their parent stars, for example huge dust clouds in the middle of the galactic interstellar space, within galaxy clusters, whose mass just climbs to 80% of the mass of the cluster!! ! (You can watch and listen to Prof. Yoel Rafaeli's amazing lecture on this topic on the Tel Aviv University Astronomical Club website).
In addition to all these, the scientists also predict the possibility of the existence of a wimp's mass, which does not radiate AM. and therefore difficult to identify and measure. It turns out that quantum theory "permits" its existence, and therefore, it is appropriate to test and measure in an experiment
your existence
However, what do you suggest? To invent new theoretical controllers that will fit, each one separately, ad hoc, for different measurements on different scales.
This method has two main disadvantages:
One - it loses the generalization principle that we require from the laws of science.
The second - it loses the motivation to continue researching and discovering new, unknown phenomena, relying on new and sophisticated means of observation
More than what we have so far.
I believe that the competition and the mutual criticism that exists in the world of science, and also, the ultimate requirement to confirm the theory with the results of experiments, constitute a fairly effective control mechanism on the development of science, although, certainly not completely free of errors.
No. Ben-Ner
I don't care to be a king but I swear to you I wouldn't wear invisible clothes.
I don't agree with you that the boy is smart, why?, he's just a boy who saw a naked king. You don't have to be smart for that!
And about gravity. What more do I need to ask to decide that Newton's formula is not valid in spiral galaxies? After all, the measurements show that the formula is largely incorrect and a lot of mass is missing.
The dark mass is an attempt to keep the gravitation formula in the picture, to change the data to fit the formula. In my opinion, any attempt to change the measured data is a poor attempt
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
rationalize
It is true that dark matter only responds to the gravitational field and is not interactive with the electromagnetic field. At the same time, it should be noted that the phenomenon of gravitational recirculation results solely from the curvature of space by the mass and not from electromagnetic interaction. Therefore, dark matter definitely influences and causes gravitational recirculation, and this, as mentioned, is the result of its effect on the geometry of space.
Yehuda Sabdarmish
The parable that the parable, "the king's new clothes", is indeed a parable full of wisdom and morals.
The only question is...who is the king? And who is the boy?
From my experience in life I learned that, everyone tends to attribute to himself the image of the child (the wise one) while the other is……the king (the fool).
I am sure that you are not exempt from this rule either and you attribute to yourself the image of the child, the wise one of course.
This may be the point of slight disagreement between us. And I will explain why.
It is not possible for a scientist to determine in advance, a priori, without any reliance on experiment and theoretical study, that a physical phenomenon exists or does not exist. Therefore, when you, Yehuda Sabdarmish, dismiss, casually, based on your arbitrary opinion alone, scientific hypotheses that are currently at the forefront of research, then you are the naked king.
Note !! This is a principled claim!! And it is valid, even if he finally finds that here and there you were right in some of your claims. All the more so, if it turns out that you were wrong.
Yael, you don't know what you're getting into...
Michael, please don't get upset, she has good intentions...
Does anyone know why it is necessary to "build an underground structure weighing a ton" to find dark matter? What does it help that he is underground and what does his weight matter?
Yehuda,
Regarding the website, you are not quite accurate.
The concept of the ether was invented entirely for one purpose only: to act as a medium for electromagnetic waves. The Michelson and Morley experiment ruled out the existence of the site - the same site that was intended to be used as an intermediary. There is no debate about that, and there is no mistake either.
Now you come and claim that there is something else that you call ether, and it does not act as a medium for electromagnetic waves. This is a discovery from me, I would like to hear a little more about its properties if possible, but the Michelson and Morley experiment was not at all designed to discover or rule out this kind of "site".
It is advisable to be a little careful when announcing a "mistake that everyone believes in"
What is amazing is the almost religious fanaticism with which you take your positions.
I have to say that the comments here amaze me.
First of all - we observed a gravitational field that has no explanation other than dark matter.
I suggest you read the link I gave.
The most striking evidence was obtained from the observations of the so-called Bullet Cluster
You are welcome to read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster
But I really ask that you read before you respond.
If you read this, Yael, you will see that what you said in your response (42) regarding MACHO is not true.
And specific to some of your words - Eddie:
We didn't see an electron either.
Everything we are able to see is in the macroscopic world. Everything else we "see" is the output of measuring devices and the interpretation we give to this appearance is based on theories that, as we know, in science, are never proven.
Therefore, the question regarding the existence of dark matter is not fundamentally different from the question of the existence of the electron.
It is true that the electron already has more confirmations, but it is a matter of quantity and not quality.
Regarding the WIMPS, I find it appropriate to repeat what I thought was very clear:
If we observe WIMPS it will be an observation of dark matter - literally. What is so hard to understand here?
The WIMPS that are currently only hypothetical are endowed (if they exist) with the properties we attribute to dark matter. They have mass, their interaction with the baryonic matter is almost zero and all.
It is a substance that, if it is found in large quantities, can explain all the phenomena, and if it is not found in large quantities, then we have to keep looking for other things, but it is by definition a substance that contributes to all the phenomena attributed to dark matter, and everything that we see today as an "anomaly" is based on calculations that did not take it into account.
Therefore - if they are discovered - it will be a discovery of dark matter. Maybe not all types of dark matter but at least one of them.
According to you - the only way to discover dark matter is by discovering a substance that no one has yet thought of or given a name for.
By the way, I don't know if you have thought deeply about the meaning of your claims towards the WIMPS.
After all, it is not at all clear that we will ever succeed in going out into intergalactic space!
seriously! Maybe you also want him to come and introduce himself and say "Very nice! I am the dark matter!"?
Yehuda and a questionnaire:
Keep checking. Please! But please don't bother us before you have results that can be shown in an experiment.
All the talk about "you need to do this and that" is just harassment - literally. Do you intend to make others (who do not believe in your lines of thought) do the work for you?!
to the questionnaire
I really like your approach of verifying things from the ground up.
For example, everyone believes that the speed of light is constant, but whoever repeats Minelson Morley's experiment will find that the experiment shows that the speed of light is the same in every direction but the experiment does not show that in the past the speed of light could not be different. This experiment also resulted in the conclusion that the site does not exist, again a mistake! He only showed that light does not use ether for its movement but the experiment says nothing about its existence or non-existence.
Another extreme example. To go back to Newton's thoughts on gravity and ask ourselves the difficult and emotionally charged question: - Is Newton's words that gravity controls the entire universe according to his formula a wise statement. His known universe was small, up to the planet Saturn. In the massive universe that we know today, does gravity work according to the same formula? All the evidence does not show the need to adhere to such an ancient formula.
Mr. Shalon, if your way of thinking is to check again with uninformed eyes all the laws we take for granted, then I'm with you!
Successfully!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
falcon.
I wasn't going to repeat Maxwell's attempts and discover the same things
that he discovered, but to step into his shoes because he knew little of what he was walking into
To find out, and this is my intention - to start with what electricity is made of and how it works from a point of view
of be and curiosity and come up with other experiments in order to find what you are looking for.
Don't look for electrons - because that's what you'll find, but something you don't know.
The trick is to invent the experiments that will reflect reality (or electricity in this case).
What the results will be - you don't determine that and you don't know.
The same goes for measuring devices. If you build an ammeter that only measures current
Positive while there are two currents that move against each other, you limit the
your understanding And if you build a particle accelerator which is supposed to run protons, while still
You haven't deciphered what electricity is made of - you have a big problem.
I have personally performed many experiments which show different results than usual, but this
It is still too early to talk about it.
In the matter of going from the general to the particular and vice versa. If there are 3 components or building blocks
And you passed over them (like Maxwell who stated that monopolies do not exist) - whatever you do
On a wrong basis will never be right. And worse - you will have to invent particles
Many new ones in order to fill the lack of the foundation stones.
Happy holiday
Eddie, that's exactly what I wanted to say.
According to all the wikipedias, gravitational enrichment helps in confirming the existence of macho dark matter (MACHO) which is bully - this is about "normal" matter like dwarfs or even black holes, but the dark matter of the type of imps (WIMP's) which is not bully and does not perform normal interactions With material, try to prove by other means.
Michael Rothschild:
In my understanding - the question of whether dark matter exists in intergalactic space - is still an open question.
It is true that the existence of dark matter as mentioned above can be an explanation for two difficult problems - the problem of the formation of the observed structures in the universe (which could not have been formed considering the too short time since the big bang) and the problem of the missing mass relative to the speed of stars moving at the edges of galaxies.
But such matter has never been directly observed in intergalactic space, and the dark matter hypothesis is a hypothesis, not a scientific theory. Basically, there are other hypotheses that may explain the above two problems.
The hypothetical particles WIMP's have never been observed - they are not part of the standard model.
If they are discovered - they will prove that there is a substance that has only gravitational (and 'weak') action, not electromagnetic. Does this prove that there is dark matter in intergalactic space that explains the two problems above? Not necessarily; It is only proven that the radiation of particles as above existed, and perhaps it has something to do with some 'unknown substance', but to prove that that substance is the same 'dark matter' that is supposed to exist in intergalactic space and explains the two problems mentioned above - direct evidence is needed More. Only if there is such direct evidence - then we can say that we know something about its existence and nature at the level of theory, and it is very possible that it will then turn out that apart from its gravitational property it has several other properties, which are not demonstrated at all by the WIMP's particles.
In this context, I would like to add that observations of emission events made in the previous decade provided a basis for the existence of dark matter in intergalactic space only to the extent of 20% of what is required, and cast doubt on the entire hypothesis.
As for you Questionnaire, the various experiments you described are reproduced every day all over the world and students see how the formulas they learned in class are manifested in reality.
I remember that in high school we did a bunch of experiments showing us Ohm's law and the photoelectric spectrum in action.
Of course, you can also reproduce them at home and prove the results yourself - most of the laboratory tools from the 19th century can be easily obtained in quite a few stores.
On top of that there are 2 main ways to investigate something, go from the general to the particular or from the particular to the general. Science studies nature with the help of these two methods together and each of them separately depending on the possibilities. I personally am not at all clear how nature works and what it is made of (a falling apple?) and I am not so surprised that scientists want to get to the root of the situation (gravitons that the eye cannot see) as well as understand how the same situations are embodied on a larger scale (the movement of galaxies visible only through a telescope).
Indeed, it is stated in the Hebrew wiki that so far the observations have not detected a heavy cloud created by dark matter.
I am far from being up to date on what is happening on the astrophysics front but this sounds a bit strange to me since as far as I am theoretically gravity is the only force known to us that affects the dark mass.
If the gravity of the dark mass affects the movement of galaxies, it should have a similar effect on other things as well (such as the light of the stars).
It could be, as Michael pointed out, that this is a mistake. At least that's what my knowledge and the English version of Wiki tell me
But on the assumption that Wiki is right (although I think I read even here in science news about heavy dusting of dark matter) she also offers us a solution to the lack of observations in that the dark matter is dispersed in such a way that there are no bodies large enough to create heavy dusting (this does not mean that the dark matter does not create heavy pollution).
Then it's already a problem of especially bad wording.
Eddie:
Regarding Zaragoza/Zaragoza, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Zaragoza
And in relation to the WIMPS idea, it seems to me that you are missing something.
If they find WIMPS, this means that they will find particles of matter in the world that have not been found in it until now, or in other words - dark matter.
If this happens - there will no longer be any doubt that WIMPS constitute at least part of the dark matter.
Yehuda and Yael:
Dark mass does affect the aging and the "strange thing" that Yael refers to is just one of the strange things in the Hebrew version of Wikipedia.
If you want reliable information, you should look for it in the English version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
Regarding my dissatisfaction with the dark mass - since I can't think of a better explanation right now, then "the least bad" is also "the best" and the choice between the two expressions is arbitrary.
questionnaire:
I don't know what to think about the "food for thought" you provided.
Can you clearly say what you want?
I mean, if you don't understand why physicists do what they do - maybe you should go study physics?
If you do this there are two options - either you will understand why they do it or you will understand that science is not for you.
To Michael Christian Andersen
Yaffe Anit and I take my hat off to the new work of fiction and maybe we will still be honored and heard from you in fiction
The question is if you agree with your story? Aren't you also not a fan of the dark mass and see it as the best thing among worse options and this is not reflected in your literary work. You had to introduce a certain amount of skepticism.
Try again, maybe you'll do better
Besides that, a serious question for you and others:- Does the dark mass really not affect the size of the cloud?, it seems to me that Yael is wrong and it should have an effect.
May you and all the people of Israel have a happy new year
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Correction to what I said above,
According to Wikipedia, dark mass does not cause gravitational contraction.
And that is one of the strange things about the dark mass. When you calculate the rotation of the galaxy, you find that there must be more mass than what we see, but the stars that don't shine can be known to exist because of the gravitational pull. The dark mass neither illuminates, nor does it cause gravitational contraction.
Thanks Yael for the article (which ignited a storm of responses from wimps to naked kings)
As a bystander, it is not clear to me why contemporary physics, which is supposed to study nature,
Dealing with breaking it down into factors? And is this a method of reinventing nature by finding
And did you invent smaller and smaller particles or more and more theoretical theories?
Is the purpose of physics to teach nature to speak human language? Or behave according to one's perception and formulas?
As an outside observer, it seems to me that the Tower of Babel is being built against our mesmerized poor...
Isn't it clear that the genius in nature stems from its simplicity? maybe 2 or three particles-
A base that is able to build the atom, the radiation of the waves, the senses, the animal and the plant?
Why don't you, for example, step into Faraday's, Gaum's or Maxwell's shoes and check again
Are north and south magnets (monopoles) the ones that create the electricity?
Why not rebuild the JJ Thomson radiation tube with its help
He "discovered" the electrons and rechecked the connections he made and
The radiation he received?
And why this drive forward and why no one bothers to look back but to build
On the obvious? And why does no one ask how a whole science can exist anymore
Before they discovered the foundation stones?
Food for thought……
31 not round, but original and beautiful no less 🙂
To Yehuda Sabdarmish - don't be afraid and please don't insult the most abysmal and humorless of all the wise. Always enjoy reading your comments.
Sorry I had to ruin the birch 🙂
I also have a more substantive response, but in my opinion it deserves a response that destroys its own response... we'll talk about it tomorrow...
Good night
I know it's just a genius legend, but in the legend the kingdom existed hundreds or thousands of years ago, or 10, whatever.
And a good story, there's nothing like a cynical parable meant to make fun of someone who talks nonsense.
Please don't comment anymore, 30- a round number, isn't it a shame to destroy?
Birch:
Just a small patch:
That small kingdom did not exist hundreds or thousands of years ago for the simple reason that it did not exist at all.
It's really interesting how they try to convince us of something in the field of science based on the facts they draw from a children's fairy tale.
Adam and Yael:
The differences in the versions between you are not the result of a dispute over the facts but of different terminology.
Adam is talking about the percentage that the dark mass is of the total mass, while Yael is talking about a mansion from the totality of mass and energy.
A new version of the new king's clothes:
One king went out into the street with magnificent clothes sewn for him by the best tailors.
He walked around the street and everyone saw the spectacular color of the fabric, the glittering buttons and the magnificent belt.
The king's face was beautiful and smooth and everyone noticed that in these clothes it was impossible to tell if he was a king or a queen.
A small (or tiny) boy who was standing in the crowd suddenly started shouting "The king is naked!".
People around tried to explain to him that if he was naked you wouldn't be able to see the color of the cloth and everything else and most of all - you would be able to tell if he was a king or a queen.
The boy continued to shout and claimed that the fact that you can't see if he is a man or a woman is because he is surrounded by flies that hide and that the color of the fabric, the belt, the buttons and everything else are just illusions of the ignorant crowd.
They tried to explain to him again and again but it didn't help.
to FRISCH ROBERT
As far as I have heard, from people who work at the LHC, the defect that caused the malfunction
In the accelerator, there was a defect in one of the pipe welds, a part that is made in Russia.
This defect caused the coolant gas to leak and created "contamination" in the sterile area of the accelerator, this is in addition to the damage from the explosion which also caused a lot of damage, which necessitates extensive and lengthy renovation work.
Is there really an upper limit on the operating power of the accelerator above 0.9Tev?
I don't know about that.
I think you'm wrong.
Time will tell (soon XNUMX).
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Do us a favor, don't compare the great physicists and astronomers to some subjects of a small kingdom hundreds of years ago. (or Alfie, whatever)
A. Ben-Ner,
You will learn how to use request punctuation.
Thanks.
Has a rank (special astrophysics)
And there is Zarg and that
Finally some physics news from Europe. Tired of reading only about USA/Japan.
To Mr. FRITSCH ROBERT
It is not true that there is no chance that the axle accelerator will not work once. There is always the option of dividing it in half like a half moon and turning it into a mosque for the glory of Allah. In this case, Saudi Arabia will be willing to cover part of the losses, provided that they agree to fill the other half with oil.
Good Day
And only with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Mr. Nibara
This is what the king said to the little boy before he ran back to his palace "what you think of my clothes nobody cares"
Apart from that, I really appreciate the pickle seller from Mahane Yehuda and I really wonder what he would say about the dark mass.
with a smile
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To A. Ben-Ner Habib: Some facts: a) The accelerator stopped operating at an energy level between 0.9 TeV and 1.4 TeV, which is probably where the "critical mass" is located b) No one yet knows what the effect of electromagnetic pulses of 10 khz with an energy amplitude So high on the vitality of liquid helium-cooled superconductors that the problems that still do not have a solution started from there. The accelerator has been shut down for more than a year and participants are pulling out (like Austria)
To Rabbi Sabdarmish of Magnatza:
Maybe there is a dark mass (as some scientists think) or maybe not (as the other part thinks). One thing is certain: nobody cares what you think about the subject. Just as no one cares what the pickle seller from Makhana Yehuda thinks about quantum theory or the big bang.
A person,
Dark mass makes up 22% of the universe. Dark energy 74%. And together all the mass and dark energy make up 96%.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:DarkMatterPie.jpg
Here is an illustration.
The dark mass causes gravitational contraction, and it is derived from the galaxy rotation equations.
The dark galaxy is what causes the universe to accelerate instead of decelerate its expansion.
rationalize:
Are the current estimates for the amount of dark matter at 25 percent?
I have always heard of much higher percentages. More in the 90s area.
To all my lovers and "fans"
I will remind all of us of the wonderful childhood story, the story of the Danish writer Hans Christian Andersen "The Emperor's New Clothes" (in English: Keiserens Nye Klæder, in Danish: Keiserens Nye Klæder).
For those who forgot and those who don't exactly know,
Below is the summary of the act:-
One king asked to have a garment sewn for him that would not look like him ever since. Two swindlers accepted the task and claimed that only people who are not stupid can see the fabric of the garment, needless to say everyone who the swindlers showed the "garment" claimed that it was really amazing. And so the day came when the king decided to march with his new clothes in front of his subjects, and the whole nation was full of praise for the beauty of the clothes and the fabric. No one dared to go against the consensus so as not to be found out in Tippso.
Then, from among the audience, a small boy shouted: "Look, the king is naked!"
Apparently, a little boy, whose knowledge of betrayal and sewing was zero compared to all the other viewers, but his quality was that he did not accept all the conventions that the adults accepted, he did not feel the need to belong to the consensus!.
It is true that I am only an amateur astronomer, and I am small compared to the great scientists, you and they are wise in seeing the "dark" garment that the universe wears, and only a small and stupid astronomer like me does not see it
But believe me "the king - the universe is naked!"
The dark mass that no one sees, does not even exist!
But, what a beautiful day for children's stories!
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Lesbadramish Yehuda
Your response is really embarrassing.
Once upon a time, I appreciated your attempts to "question convention" more.
Today, you no longer try to cast a reasoned doubt, but instead, set the conventions yourself, which of course are acceptable to you. And your reasons are with you only.
In this state of affairs, it is not impossible to call you "Rabbi Yehuda Sabdarmish"
Or alternatively, "the genius from the observatory in Givatayim".
And sorry if my words implied any heretical words in your truths.
To the honorable FRITSCH ROBERT.
Please allow me, in all modesty, to disagree with your learned opinion.
First, it is not so likely that the good physicists and engineers will work hard on developing such an expensive accelerator such as the LHC, without taking your elementary "comment" into account.
Secondly, you may know that the largest accelerator operating today, in Illinois-USA, has a maximum energy of about 0.9Tev, while the LHC is planned to reach a maximum energy of about 1,4Tev. That is, about 50% more, only.
I assume that if your theoretical comments were true, then the Illinois accelerator would not have been able to operate either. …….and he is not like that.
With you sorry.
A very interesting article, the development is really exciting, in my opinion, and has the potential for groundbreaking discoveries!
Reminds me a little of the underground facilities we built, in Japan and the USA, for my revelations
The neutrinos.
As you remember, Nobel prizes were awarded for these discoveries.
Respondent No. 11. First of all write Hebrew without errors and then we can discuss the details.
Respected: Sabradmish Yehuda and White Blood regarding the new CERN accelerator. It turns out that, in my opinion, it cannot be qualified because of one basic reason and a few more hidden ones. The main reason: the planners forgot that there are two opposing forces that can blow up the entire accelerator: a) The electromagnetic fields that accelerate the protons originate from the field of electrons that will create lines of force according to a negative electrical charge. of the electrons). The reason: b) The accelerated protons have a positive charge whose electromagnetic field will have lines of force opposite to the lines of force of an electromagnetic field for the electrons. At low energy levels you don't pay attention to the state of contention between two Knel fields. But at energy levels in the LHC accelerator there is a problem. There are other problems suitable for the special theory of relativity as well as Einstein's general theory of relativity and thermodynamics, but unfortunately there is not enough space to spread everything here.
Sabdarmish Yehuda,
Yes, go to sleep, good night and sweet dreams.
And I also take my hat off to Sabdarmish Yehuda - the greatest astronomer of all time - who by virtue of his wisdom, and not to mention - his modesty - can cancel the work of who-knows-how many physicists and astrophysicists with a wave of his hand, and knock down their work at once!
Who like him is omniscient, to whom all the secrets of the world are placed and arranged...
And regarding the particle accelerator:
What to do, that's how it is when it comes to things on such a monstrous scale.
In complex things, the probability of failures and technical disruptions is much higher than in simple things.
And probably he will continue to make many such "pops", which will require correction, until he works smoothly. Just like starting with the first computer (which I don't need to mention what its specs were) until today, throughout the years there were glitches and problems that required solutions, until today I'm able to sit here, and like a retard write a comment that won't be recorded anyway, from my personal computer at home, which works - inshallah - tip Top.
Michael, white blood and Judah,
You're right, it's a mistake.
First of all absolute zero is minus 273.16 degrees Celsius and not minus 278. Please correct.
In addition, I take my hat off to the Spaniards who have been looking for ten years for something that does not exist, certainly they are doing it with a full salary. And most likely they will do so for another ten years.
At least it only costs them a few glitters and not ten billion dollars like the axle accelerator
By the way, what about him? Worked for a day and a half, did powwow!!!! Big and since then he has become part of the dark mass?
Come on, it's too late and the night is dark and I'd rather sleep
Happy New Year
Yehuda Sabdarmish
I thought absolute zero was 273- (?)
They have already tried and failed to discover wimps with similar detectors. I wonder what is special about this detector.
I admit that I could not understand the methodological logic of the distinguished scientists from Zaragoza (and it is 'Zaragoza' - isn't it?).
If I understand correctly, the detector is supposed to detect 'dark matter' assuming that it consists of elementary particles called WIMP's, as the main components.
But the assumption itself is a completely theoretical hypothesis. Therefore, the detector can actually only detect the radiation of these particles, and not 'prove' the existence of 'dark matter' or at least 'discover the truth' about it.
questionable to me,
happy New Year
Ami Bachar
Read only the original article which is more accurate and has more details
Absolute zero is 273 Celsius and not 278