An international team of scientists has discovered a surprising new source of cosmic rays: a region close to the solar system that scatters high-energy electrons into space. How these electrons are created is still unknown, but one hypothesis is already attracting interest: dark matter
Cosmic rays from dark matter?
An international team of researchers, who published their findings in the June 20 issue of the prestigious journal Nature, studied the most powerful and interesting sources of cosmic particles bombarding our atmosphere from space using balloons, which float high above Antarctica. The particle detector that discovered the new source, called ATIC, was built with funding from the American space agency, NASA. Upon its launch, the researchers expected to discover the usual mixture of cosmic particles, protons and ions, which they planned to examine in depth. But to their surprise the detector also detected an abundance of high energy electrons.
"This is an important discovery," says team member John Waffle of Louisiana State University. "This is the first time we see a single source of accelerated cosmic particles that can be distinguished against the background of radiation coming from across the galaxy."
Galactic cosmic rays contain subatomic particles accelerated to near the speed of light by supernova explosions and other violent events. They actually flood the Milky Way and penetrate our solar system from all directions. Cosmic rays usually contain protons and nuclei of heavier atoms with a dash of electrons and photons. During the five weeks of the balloon's flight in 2000 and 2003, the scientists discovered 70 electrons with above-average high energy. The number sounds low, but it means a lot. "It's like suddenly seeing 70 sports cars on a normal main road," Wafel says, it's an unexpected and surprising event.
The cosmic particle detector hovers in the air above Antarctica, but the surprise did not end there. Fast electrons lose their energy at a rapid rate as they move through space. These energy losses occur when the electrons collide with low-energy photons, or they emit radiation as they spin under the influence of the galaxy's magnetic field. High-energy electrons lose their excess energy after a relatively short distance of a kilopresc (3,259 light-years), at which point they are no longer considered high-energy electrons. The meaning of the discovery in Antarctica is that the source of the electrons must be close, less than a kiloparsec, a real neighbor of the Earth in galactic terms. (The diameter of the Milky Way is 100,000 light years).
Unfortunately for the researchers, it is impossible to determine with the detector where exactly the source is located. First, the detector would wobble and spin in the strong winds at the top of the atmosphere, and second, the electrons would also wobble on their way to Earth due to the magnetic fields they crossed. At most, future measurements will be able to reveal the general direction: on which side of the sky the source is located.
Therefore, a wide field of hypotheses opens up. Maybe the source is a nearby pulsar? Or a microquasar? Or a small black hole the size of our sun? – All of these are able to accelerate electrons to high energies. It is very possible that such a source is hiding not far from us and has not been discovered until now. Discoveries of such sources is one of the missions of the Fermi Space Telescope that NASA launched recently to scan the sky and discover sources of gamma radiation that would reveal such bodies.
But there is an even more fascinating possibility: dark matter. According to the astronomical observations of the universe and the physical calculations, we see only a small part of the universe. The mass of the visible universe is much smaller than the mass and energy needed to explain the observations. From this, many researchers came to the hypothesis that most of the universe consists of dark matter and energy. Dark matter, as it is called, does not emit light and we can infer its existence indirectly due to its effect on gravity.
A group of physical theories that tries to explain dark matter (Kaluza-Klein theories) through the existence of additional and hidden dimensions claims that when dark matter particles collide with each other, they ionize, that is, they become pure energy (similar to a collision between matter and antimatter). These collisions create, among other things, high-energy electrons suitable for observations over Antarctica. "Our data can be explained by the hypothesis that a cloud of dark matter is hovering near our solar system," says Wafel.
It is not easy to prove this hypothesis. One of the ways is that such ionization should also emit gamma radiation at certain energies. Here, too, the Fermi Space Telescope should provide evidence of this in the coming years.
"Whatever the source," say the researchers, "it's going to be amazing!"
The source of the news is from the NASA website
Further reading
51 תגובות
Very beautiful Danny, but the pressure required to rotate the galaxy is tiny.
א
Remember that in SA the pressure required to rotate the galaxy is about one billionth of an atmosphere for the entire length of the galaxy. This in SA is not a great pressure that could very well exist. A little faith!
Especially if we don't forget to insert the last term in the formula, N, which is the number of moles.
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Good week Yehuda,
Look at it mathematically: the part in the formula you wrote down is actually 0. Because T is very small and V is very large, so for all intents and purposes T/V is zero, hence the pressure is also zero. That is why there are gas clouds that have existed for billions of years and do not disperse - it is more correct to look at the gases in space as small particles of sand that are at rest.
The accepted theory says that the gas clouds are quite stable until a super nova compresses them, then electrostatic forces begin to act that bind the gas particles, from this level of dust there are accidental collisions that grow particles up to a mountain plateau, about ten km in size, gravity begins to control and pull material, with a diameter of about -400 km the body turns into a ball, the process continues until the creation of a planet or sun.
There are immature theories about the role of black holes in the formation of stars and galaxies and it is possible that the supermassive black holes produce a flux of particles that somehow affects…
good week,
post Scriptum. - Indeed, gravity balances the atmospheric pressure as well as the rotational acceleration.
This is Judah:
I said I've had enough of this nonsense so I won't continue trying to help you overcome your misunderstandings because you're not interested in that at all
To Michael
A cloud of gas in space has pressure between its various parts without any need for gravity
P=N*R*T/V
The pressure is equal to the number of moles times a constant times the temperature divided by the volume.
This is the gas pressure formula. Do you see gravity here??, I don't. Therefore, all particles that move in space, the size of which can also be the entire universe, define a gas, and therefore also everything that is implied by it: - pressure, temperature, wave speed, etc.
A gas can spread everywhere and even so there will be pressure in its internal parts, right, a pressure that will decrease as the volume increases.
I don't understand what the stars have to do with their specific gravity
But the fact that the volume increases means that the universe is expanding, I hope you agree with that because these are your words.
And even the expansion will be done in an accelerated manner, but this explanation will only be understood by those who understand that it is a gas, so I will spare you the intellectual burden associated with understanding the proof.
Think of the netrins for example. They move from anywhere to anywhere in the vastness of the universe. They are gas!
Therefore, whether you like it or not, this "nonsense" that you so enjoy calling it, creates stress. And this natrine gas hits the atmosphere and, contrary to your will, does not mix with it and does not care at all about some tiny atmosphere of a small planet somewhere in space!
And there are many more particles in the universe, some that exist and some that are still grasping them, every group of particles moving in space from place to place create by definition a gas, with everything that follows from that,
And they also create pressure if Michael wants to or even if he doesn't want to, even if he calls them nonsense because the universe really doesn't care about the nonsense Michael says about gas pressure that depends on gravity. It's just a shame that innocent students who enter the site have to hear that gas pressure depends on gravity or the specific gravity of any planet.
And in the "nonsense" article I wrote "stressing the galaxies" I said that even if a particle is discovered that builds the dark mass then it would be more correct to call the dark mass the "dark mass gas", but that is for another debate.
Michael, maybe you and I have spent enough time on this argument. What do you think??
So I will end with your words to the readers "think a little for yourselves"
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I asked the question, so it makes no sense for you to tell me what the question is.
What causes stress?
On Earth, for example, there is air pressure due to gravity.
There is no pressure on the moon because the gravity there is too weak and cannot hold the gases and prevent their escape.
In order for the gas to exert pressure and not spread everywhere, force is needed.
That was the question but you don't have an answer so you invent another question.
So I gave you a hint but before you say that the force that presses the gas is gravity then you should think because it has consequences that change all your conclusions.
The story about specific gravity does not refer to gas and I never said that the specific gravity of the gas plays a role there.
What is important is the specific gravity of the various stars.
The pressure (for those who don't know - and this probably includes Yehuda) is the average force per unit area accumulated from the transfer of the momentum of the gas molecules to the body on which the pressure is applied.
The total force exerted on the body depends only on its shape and not on its weight.
We know that under the influence of an equal force a heavy body will accelerate more slowly than a light body.
That is, if we have, for example, two balls of the same size, one of which is heavier than the other (that is, with a different specific gravity), then the forces acting on them are the same, but their movement will be different (because the heavier will accelerate, as mentioned, more slowly.).
For those who have not yet understood - it is recommended to look at what is happening in our atmosphere.
It has, as you know, air pressure.
This pressure causes the helium-filled balloon to rise, but people, however inflated they may be, do not begin to float.
It's a matter of specific gravity.
I am sure that all our dear students understood this immediately and in fact the entire above section is intended only for you, Yehuda.
So what have we had so far?
We had pressure created from an unknown source and persisting for no reason for billions of years, even though gas under pressure tends to disperse and flow from the more pressurized place to the less pressurized place.
We had a strange claim that this gas affects the bodies in the galaxy regardless of their shape and specific gravity.
But if this is not enough - it is far from exhausting the magnitude of the nonsense.
This gas - for some reason - does not mix with the Earth's atmosphere. In a strange way, he manages to move her through space as one piece.
Not enough? So here's more: this pressure accelerated the entire solar system to speeds of hundreds of kilometers per second - which is pretty fast - but we - for some reason - do not feel any acceleration in any direction.
When any body is in a non-gravitational acceleration (one that acts on all its parts equally) it feels the acceleration. We feel it in the elevator and in the car, for example.
Whatever it is, the strange and impossible pressure offered to us - manages to speed up the earth without us realizing it.
Want more examples of the nonsense of the idea?
Think a little for yourself. It seems to me that I have devoted myself to this nonsense already.
to Michael and others
The question is not what force causes pressure but what pressure causes force.
And the answer:-
The universe is full of particles that move from place to place and therefore these particles form a gas. Since every gas has a defined pressure, here you have the pressure that creates the required force.
Your story about the specific gravity of the gas is incomprehensible to me, and in principle I don't care about it. The fact that you repeat this endlessly shows that you do not understand the simple principle of gas pressure.
But you don't want to understand that Gaz Kim pressured and repeats it endlessly and deceives the innocent souls of our dear students.
IM coming back. Particles and masses circulate in the universe, therefore the universe is made of gas, therefore, there is gas pressure in the universe, and therefore, this can be an explanation for the movement of galaxies without dark mass and even without gravity.
Note that I didn't include any gravitation in the explanation, not mine, not Newton's, not Einstein's, not Milgrom's, and I don't care at all about the specific gravity of the gas, what is important is that it is gas!.
You cannot say that there is no gas in the universe because there are lots of particles moving around in the universe. What you can say may not be enough, and I claim that apparently there is enough because it would explain everything, the movement of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, dust, and the accelerated expansion of the universe.
No need for dark mass and dark energy!
Note that I don't mention gravitation because I don't need it in this explanation, so don't either.
did you understand that??
But, Michael, no matter how simple it is, it won't help because you don't want to understand, and you'll just scream that it's absurd. Readers will decide if moving particles form a gas. Everything else follows from that.
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Regarding the Bullet Cluster, maybe it didn't convince you, but both Milgrom and Beckenstein accept the claim that there is no explanation without dark mass.
Needless to say, the other scientists also think so.
So your opinion is different but that doesn't mean anything because in order to say that there is another explanation you have to present another explanation and this explanation has to be compatible with reality and even more so it has to be free of internal contradictions.
As I said - your explanations suffer from the two shortcomings that I mentioned that a scientific explanation must not suffer from.
Your theory of gravity has been presented on the science website and its many failures have been exposed in the series of discussions we have already held.
Those who want to check this can get a copy of the place in the following response:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
I also addressed the "squeezing of the galaxies" theory here and explained why it is unfounded, but I don't have the strength and desire to look for a place for this debate.
As a principle - if it is based on your theory of gravity, then it suffers from all its many flaws, and if it is based on normal gas, it ignores, among other things, the fact that the behavior of a body under the influence of gas pressure is affected by its specific mass and many other things (and of course it does not bother to specify what the force that causes the formation the pressure).
Well, regarding the Bullet Cluster, I'm sorry to say, but in my humble opinion, it doesn't prove anything. Again and again the fundamental error of basing on Newton's gravitation formula is repeated in the cosmological distances to distances that are a billion times the distances at which this formula has been tested and proven to be correct. At any other distance it failed and a lot of dark mass had to be added to it to reset it.
True, except for the expensive M94 where there is no need for dark mass and by the way, Newton's formula is sufficient.
But it has already been said that one righteous man in Sodom does not make all the others righteous.
Please do not start Pandora's box, and Michael.
behave well!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To Michael
The well-remembered "Shaul" galaxy is M94 and not as you wrote.
I won't go into the details of my theory here and whoever wants to will argue about it on my blog (although I would prefer to do it here)
But they do not contradict any findings and explain many things, starting with the rotation of the galaxies, M94, dust, and accelerated expansion of the universe. They may also explain gravitation.
And as for Professor Milgrom, he created his theory as a replacement for the dark mass and believed it did not exist. Today, because of the new discoveries, he must change his mind.
Regarding Bullet Cluster, I will dig deeper and respond.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
To the anonymous user:
I really didn't think you were supposed to solve all the physics problems.
After all, you haven't actually solved anything in your question - not even in the field of cooking.
You just described the fact that there is a theory that explains a lot of things as it seems to you like "the site strikes a second time" but you insist that we don't call it steam. Come and tell me what you call it. Creation? An invention? enlightenment? Refutation of an existing theory? what?
You come to me with claims that I didn't explain to you what dark matter is.
Really sorry but have you considered that this is a result of not asking what dark matter is?
Your question was whether there are scientists who oppose the idea of dark matter, and I explained to you that even if there are a few (and I don't know of any such) and even if Yehuda says there are many (and he also doesn't know of any), then most scientists today assume that dark matter exists (and this majority includes Milgrom and Bekenstein).
In presenting your opinion on dark matter it is evident that you know nothing about this hypothesis and you do not understand that it is really a logical solution to problems.
I repeat that it was discovered by a method that has already led to many important discoveries that today no one disputes their truth.
He explains very well the excess of gravitation found in the various galaxies and the concentration of this gravitation, in some cases, in a place different from the one where the center of gravity of the visible matter is.
No change in the laws of gravity - be it MOND, or TeVeS or any other change in the laws of gravity - will not be able to explain this fact.
If you really want to gain some understanding of the subject - it is better to start by reading the material written about it in Wikipedia. From your responses it is clear that you did not.
There is no gagging and certainly not aggressive gagging, when real and non-disparaging questions arise.
As I said before - doubt is built into science and always - in every field and not only on the subject of dark matter - the accepted theory is nothing but the theory that matches the observations in the best way.
Therefore - as I said - raising the doubt without pointing out a contradiction with the findings and without offering an alternative explanation is nothing but steam (and this is also before the use of the phrase "the site strikes again").
With the phrase "the website strikes a second time" the element of disdain for scientists that was present in the response even without it is emphasized.
In response 37 you asked questions that I didn't miss in your previous response. They just weren't there.
You can understand from the fact that there are no (beware of my language - almost no) physicists who think that there is no dark matter, that there is no theory that explains the set of phenomena that dark matter explains that is serious enough to convince the scientists.
I have already pointed out here in the past about the contradiction between M64 and MOND and I am proud of the fact that even Yehuda already cites it. When I discussed the matter with Milgrom and Beckenstein they said that they are still not sure that the measurements made in this galaxy are accurate and therefore they do not stop working on the alternative gravitation formula, but when I pointed out to them the Bullet Cluster they admitted that there is no way to explain it without dark matter (and even a lot of dark matter) .
Judah's theories about gravitation are simply wrong.
They both contradict the findings and themselves, but I have no desire to come back here and grind the issue a second time if there is no necessity.
If it's important to you to see why I claim they are wrong you need to get to know them first.
If they make sense to you, I can explain to you why I don't think they make sense at all.
Before you run to study them, I repeat what I said before: they are not accepted by the scientific establishment and have not even been published on the pages of any scientific journal.
There is a reason for this and I explained what it is.
It seems that all the comments on the science website are from imposters impersonating imposters
: )
The unit is Panto
to the anonymous participant
There are other explanations. The known explanation is the MOND theory of Professor Milgrom from the Weizmann Institute. He claims that the rapid acceleration in the movement of galaxies does not behave according to Newton's second law and this eliminates the need for dark mass.
This theory often fails in explanations, for example, in explaining the movement of the galaxy M94 which actually lacks dark mass.
Various explanations are also put forward regarding changing the gravitation formula, which would give more gravitation according to a coordinated formula. Such explanations fail when they come to explain the accelerated expansion of the universe. An example of this is in the article I wrote, "A proposal for an alternative gravitation formula - a thought exercise" on my blog.
Your faithful servant has an unproven explanation that explains the movement of the galaxies by pressure differences without the need for gravitation or dark mass. You can read about the above explanation in the article "Stressing the Galaxies", which appears on my blog.
As for the ways to prove or disprove the dark mass, well:-
If they find particles that make up the dark mass, this will be proof of its existence. They are looking for them in the particle accelerator at Tsern which is currently shut down for several months.
Additionally, since everything is based on the correctness of Newton's gravitation formula at cosmological distances, then if evidence is discovered that the formula is abnormally inaccurate at cosmological distances it would change the need for dark mass.
Hope I helped.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
anonymous. Why don't you do this inquiry yourself and come here with answers. You can find everything on Google.
And because it is claimed that I am not asking a question but "raising steam" I will ask my question again, in detail, and there are three exclamation points to highlight the questions for those who miss them:
There are phenomena that we do not know how to explain, concerning (largely) an impossible relationship between the mass of all kinds of bodies and how they move. The explanation that dominates the dome is that there is more mass (and energy, and I know the story is a little different there...) that we don't see whose gravitational influence causes all the same phenomena. This extra mass (and energy) is called "dark matter".
1. Are there other explanations?????
2. Are they scientifically serious????? If there is, I would be happy to explain (to laymen) how much
Words of the principles behind them.
I know the attempt to explain the above phenomena by raising the hypothesis that we do not fully understand gravity on a large scale.
3. Is this explanation the leader in the minority opinion?????
4. What are the problems involved in it??????
And in conclusion and as an addition,
5. Do we have any idea of any direct evidence that if we find it we will know for sure
that dark matter is the right direction?????
I think it's an interesting topic, that you don't hear too much about. To the general public (which includes me) theories such as dark matter and string theory are presented as scientific truth, and there is almost no reference to other research directions.
Thank you very much.
Dear Friends
Thanks to everyone who answered seriously. For starters, if you ever realized that I underestimate the community of scientists who research these issues, then you probably didn't read what I wrote.
All I wanted to know is whether there is another direction in modern physics to explain all those phenomena that dark matter is supposed to be the cause of.
If there is, what good. If not, probably a little less good because it's always good to have a minority trying to check what the majority doesn't see. Even and especially if that minority turns out to be wrong in the end!
I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge to assess whether dark matter (or string theory, which suffers from the same problems of proof and paradigm aromas) are the right directions. But as long as they have not been proven (!!!!!!) it is important to seriously check other directions as well to see that we are not missing anything. I have no other explanation, sorry, but I wanted to know if there is something serious.
me (response 15)
It's true that if we don't see something it doesn't mean it's not there, but it also doesn't mean it's there...
To Michael R.
I apologize that I didn't get rid of all the problems of the modern paragraph in the (quite innocent in my opinion) question I asked. Next time I'll make sure I have a particle accelerator and a really big telescope before I write anything.
As I recall, you also did not explain what that dark matter is in your answer, you only said it was there. Does that make your answer illegitimate? Do you understand that every time a physical explanation ends with the words "dark matter" it's a translation of "we don't really have a complete and detailed idea of why this is happening and what it actually is"? Do you understand the scientific problematic of explaining phenomena in a term that no one knows what it means?
Maybe we'll get to a good explanation of this term, but right now, what to do, we're not there.
From your responses I understand that currently the scientific community (on whose behalf you are speaking for that matter) is saying something along the lines of: "We almost understood what dark matter is, because we have no other option, what remains is only technical matters. There is no doubt about it!" Since I know the scientific community doesn't talk like that, I asked if there were any other serious theories. that's it.
The way I see it, from my little place, it could be that dark matter is really what is happening there, but you have to remember that right now it is "only" the best explanation there is!!!!
And as an explanation it is a bit "strange". Even if dark matter exists, it points to a very serious gap in physics. The fact that we cannot measure, feel, see, etc. in any direct way 70% of the mass and energy in the universe is very problematic, however you look at it.
What is certain is that if there is such an aggressive gagging of those who raise a question even in the scientific community, it is our entire loss.
Michael
Well, all in all, I speculated, these are things that have not been studied enough, the Galileo article states that there is a unique electromagnetic signature for these phenomena. If the EMP that is released creates the appropriate topology and lasts for a sufficient time and at an appropriate wavelength, it is very possible that a phenomenon is created that originates from the natural acceleration of electrons to energetic orders of magnitude of 300GEV
Especially when it comes to positive lightning, which means that the stream of electrons comes from below to the positively charged cloud. It is not impossible that this is also the direction of the magnetic pulse created after the initial disintegration.
That is, from the base of the upper cloud towards the ionosphere.
Higgs, lightning do not achieve budgets.
Higgs:
I do not know.
I have no doubt that the researchers took this possibility into account and I tried to indicate a possible consideration.
I suppose there are other considerations but I have no doubt that atmospheric phenomena including the lightning phenomenon were taken into account.
The author's email is also listed in the original article, and if you ask him what he thinks about the lightning issue, I'd love to read what he answered.
Michael
I can add another factor and that is the EMP the strength of the electromagnetic pulse released from the lightning is linearly related to the order of magnitude of the power. The pulses do not propagate linearly. It is very possible that the strength of the magnetic field that is released and its concentration create a kind of huge magnetic bottle with dimensions from the bottom up into which the energetic electrons from the ionosphere are accelerated so that a kind of natural accelerator is created that raises the energy of those electrons to the required level.
Michael
The main voltage 1GV ie 1 divided by 300 of the threshold is correct. But this is a secondary acceleration of energetic electrons from the ionosphere down to the positive upper base of the decay. That is, from an altitude of about 90 km to the upper part of the stratosphere about 40 km, it is not impossible that some of the electrons that are initially energetic in the ionosphere were accelerated to these orders of magnitude of 300 GEV especially along such a long path of about 45 km in a very high sparseness of any gases.
The research balloons did not go beyond the stratosphere, i.e. not beyond about 40 km. Finding 70 elects is not enough in my opinion to establish blown theories. You have to wait for the satellite to check if the phenomenon exists and especially the direction to the specific source to verify the theory.
Higgs:
The supplier has nothing to do with the matter.
They are talking here about the energy of individual electrons and it ranges, as mentioned, between 300 and 800 GEV
Michael
The voltage of an average lightning that is about 300 meters long is about 1GV and the current is about 100KA and the power is about a hundred terawatts data from Wiki.
With such a breakdown, you can run the accelerator at several times the planned power.
Keep in mind that the above figures are the average. In reality, according to the laws of probability, the energy levels will be divided into many groups of values, some of which will be electrons with much, much higher energy, and together with the magnetic field effect, there is a considerable probability of the appearance of values of the magnitude in question
point:
Beckenstein told me that it is indeed impossible to explain the Bullet Cluster without dark matter, but that in his opinion it is possible that the dark matter is baryonic matter without any special properties.
That's what Milgrom also said.
As far as I understand, your claim about the possibility of it being a regular bully material does not match the findings, but that is another debate.
As you can see in my previous response - the name appears in blue and clicking on it leads to the site I wanted to mention (in this case - exactly the site that Higgs pointed to)
For anyone who wants to attach a link to his words:
Until they solve the problem, there is, in my opinion, a possibility to attach a link as part of the identification data and avoid the blocking.
That's what I'm doing in the current response.
I responded to Higgs..
Michael,
What did Beckenstein tell you?
Higgs, a weak thing, Barakim will not get budgets for NASA from Hussein Osama.
Higgs:
I noticed that recently there is a problem with the automatic filtering mechanism and it pauses until any response that includes a link in the text is approved.
In the past this would happen when there were two or more links, while today - even one link causes a delay.
I understand that this is a behavior of the automatic filter which is a general tool used by many sites and is not unique to the science site.
As far as I was able to understand in the conversation with Remi - not everything we would like this tool to know how to do, it does know.
Higgs:
I was talking about the energy.
Here we are talking about an energy range of 300-800 GEV and in lightning the maximum energy range is measured in a few hundreds of KEV
my father
Why don't you automatically approve a referral to your own website please???
Michael
It was actually published not long ago here below
"The cities of light hidden from view" article from Galileo
The height of these lightnings can reach up to 95 km
And I would not be surprised if the magnetic field near the pole acts as a kind of big pump that accelerates those electrons and gives them additional energy
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-invisible-cities-of-lights-2612089/
Michael
As is known, in recent years the existence of lightnings called sprites, which occur in the upper part of the atmosphere, and their energy turns out to be very high, was discovered.
The general energy released from lightning may well give some of the electrons the same energy values that you would find in cosmic rays.
Higgs and Isaiah:
I can't believe the researchers didn't check this possibility.
They probably came to the conclusion that there is no point in mentioning it because it is far from appropriate.
If I'm not mistaken - the electrons in question here are more than a thousand times more energetic than those released and accelerated in lightning.
Friends:
Let's start with the fact that I am not the one who tried to rally democracy to his aid and talked about "many scientists" who hold a certain opinion.
I did not try to claim that science is a democracy. All in all, I was just pointing out the fact that this claim (about the existence of many scientists who do not accept dark matter) is false and that claim fails to provide even one example of a single scientist who does not accept the existence of dark matter.
Science is not a democratic world in the sense that the opinions of people with proven training and ability are valued more than the opinions of people who lack them.
This is a fact that you must remember when you read proposals for new scientific theories voiced by those who are not familiar with the existing theories.
My father wants to bring scientific information to the public.
Not every story can be considered scientific information.
When the site publishes theories that contradict the experiment and include gross errors in the translation of the models into mathematical formulas, it is simply disrespectful.
This has happened before and my father wants to avoid it in the future.
That is why he distinguishes between articles and comments.
In the comments it is clear that the one who risks being humiliated is only the writer of the comment.
The material intended to appear as an article is examined more strictly and if it does not come from a qualified source and in addition to this my father is unable to evaluate it himself, he tries to activate a mechanism of peer review.
This is how science works.
As Yehuda said - this is not a democracy. Too bad he is not ready to accept what he himself says.
Yehuda allows himself to determine what is allowed and what is forbidden.
I, with all due respect, do not accept his assertions.
In my opinion - when someone expresses himself in a way that disparages scientists or someone else for no reason - it is allowed and even should be addressed bluntly.
The bluntness here is a response to the bluntness that preceded it and not an end in itself.
It goes without saying that Yehuda himself is far from meeting the standards he sets for others, unless he defines defamation and blasphemy as a statement that is not blatant.
Indeed - even the articles of Tovim Mihuda are not accepted in the scientific press and the reason for this is clear.
In order for an article to be published, it must be peer-reviewed.
Now colleagues - what to do? – They are just a hole in the head. They don't want to approve the article just like that. They require him to meet standards of logic and conformity to the findings.
Therefore only those who are much better can submit an article to the scientific press.
It's a good thing and I'm glad that it's not every year from Yehuda's eyes either.
I assume that if Yehuda sends his words to a scientific journal they will be read that way.
They will be disqualified because they do not meet the professional standards and not because they were not called.
The interesting thing is that Yehuda justifies the non-reading of his words by the editors of the scientific press, but he expects you to read them anyway.
Logic of course says the opposite.
Since you are not scientists and you are not equipped with the knowledge and tools that will allow you to evaluate the article professionally, you can only rely on the fact that the editors of the newspapers (and the website) will read everything, do the initial screening for you, and get rid of you from reading nonsense.
In my humble, non-deterministic opinion, Higgs (13) was onto something. Why wouldn't the origin of the electrons be in the upper layers of the atmosphere? After all, the balloons are unable to rise beyond them. As for lightning, it's hard for me to see it happening at these altitudes, but why can't the electrons be the result of a "real" cosmic particle hitting a relaxed gas atom cruising through the thin atmosphere? The impact causes the atom to release an electron (and maybe other particles?) The chance of such an impact must be very low, hence the very low number of electrons measured. Otherwise, it is difficult to understand how electrons made such a long journey through space.
To the anonymous user:
Just like there are some theories that have been disproved (like the site you mentioned, for example), there were also some that were proven (finding the distant planets in our system, just because of their effect on the nearby ones, the neutrinos, etc.), just because you don't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Beyond that, all kinds of theories are developed in all kinds of directions, some even without the dark mass.
To Dodge Prof. Milgrom Weizmann, who is trying to produce a correction to the laws of gravitation, and to show that it agrees with the observations.
Regardless of whether it's plausible or not, contrary to what you probably think, researchers are not a bunch of idiots, lacking curiosity and creativity. On the contrary.
for everyone
Science is not a democratic world where things are checked according to the percentage of people who agree or disagree. Science is a place where opinions are exchanged and one must fight to voice them even when one disagrees with them,
In no way should you answer the questions bluntly!
This is forbidden and it is against the free spirit of science.
Avi Blizovsky, whose hard work I greatly appreciate on the science website, expressed his opinion that on his website he only wants to publish things that are in line with the scientific consensus. I am very sorry for that.
Let's go back to the dark mass.
The dark mass solution is lame, and it screams to heaven!
Numbers about the dark mass and its quantity are thrown almost freely in the air space in such a way that... every number wins. Would you like 10 times?, so be it, ten thousand times?, why not... everything is fine.
The dark mass that is attached to the universe in a huge way should have caused the universe to collapse a long time ago because of its great gravity, but what to do and the universe refuses to collapse and it actually accelerates its expansion?
The inventors of the dark mass found a simple solution and invented the dark energy, which is a kind of anti-dark mass, just like a magician pulling rabbits out of his sleeve.
And I ask myself with a smile, if tomorrow they decide that the universe is supposed to explode, then they will decide that it is also a type of explosive material??
I appreciate people like Itzik and the anonymous user who ask the right questions. I also believe they are the type to eventually find the answers!
And regarding the idea that Michael keeps repeating that they don't publish my words in serious newspapers, my answer would be that there are better people than me, millions of people who try to write for the important science newspapers, why would they even look at me, why would they even read and delve into it?, I don't expect that and I also sleep well with it.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And it did not occur to them that the source of the electrons is even closer, for example in powerful lightning that occurs in the upper part of the atmosphere. And it is also possible that the strong magnetic field near the pole causes their acceleration.
To Itzik and the anonymous user:
Yehuda expressed fear that his words would be censored even though nothing relevant that he wrote has ever (and I repeat - never!) been censored here (and there is no shortage of irrelevant things and even blasphemies and defamations that have not been censored).
He made sure, however, to spice up this letter with slander, perhaps precisely because he wanted it to be censored - I don't know.
I don't know if there are many scientists who do not accept the dark mass idea.
There may be several but Yehuda was never able to produce an example of even one!
He came back and mentioned the names of Milgrom and Bekenstein but I just talked to them and saw that even regarding them the claim is not true. More than that - I have correspondence with them in which it is written explicitly.
Not that the existence of some such scientists is really important but it is interesting how many accusations against others can be based on…. Nothing!
Another technique that Yehuda uses in his response and not for the first time is the attempt to incite those who react against me.
I address them directly and bluntly because I believe that saying things as they are and without exaggeration is the right way to explain to them what - in my opinion - they are doing wrong.
The mistake can be a mistake of content or a mistake of approach and naturally - when it is a mistake of approach - things sound more blatant.
Yehuda asks you what right I have to say this or that thing that I have a full right to say and does not bother himself with the question of his "right" to defame, dispute and lie in almost every response he makes, and to talk about me instead of the topic of discussion.
Because Yehuda may not have really understood why I claimed that Anonymous would clarify my words (even though I clarified them well in the original response as well).
In the anonymous's appeal, there is no question and no proposal for a solution. There is only defiance towards the scientists which sounds to him like "the site strikes a second time".
It's steam.
It is not the role of the scientists or anyone in general to solve the personal problem of how this or that theory sounds to someone and he knows it and probably could not expect someone to try to solve it.
Presenting a personal problem rhetorically is - in our language - steam.
Yehuda prophesies about my actions in the future in a way that does not even match my actions in the past.
He claims that until another solution is found I will insult those who have doubts about the dark mass.
There is nothing ridiculous about it.
After all, I myself doubt the matter and so do all the scientists. The doubt is built into the scientific approach. This is the reason why waving in doubt - when it is not related to pointing out a mistake or proposing another solution is nothing but steam.
You are invited to read what is written on Yehuda's website and then ask yourself why no serious scientific newspaper publishes them.
You are welcome to choose between a conspiracy theory according to which the scientists teamed up to suppress Sabdarmish and any other theory.
By the way - I did not describe Itzik as "ignorant".
I just gave an example that contradicts his claim that scientists use dark matter to explain everything.
It is true that there is a certain hint in my words, but this hint does not refer to Itzik personally. He can only attribute it to himself if he does despise scientists.
Yehuda may have felt hurt because he thought that this hint actually described himself, but this is only a theory.
To Itzik and the anonymous user
There is a response to your words in free comments in January on my blog.
Science and nature - Sabdarmish (search on Google}
To Itzik, and the anonymous user
First of all I hope my words reach you because unfortunately many comments are censored on this site.
And below is my response.
Many scientists do not accept the idea of dark mass and dark energy and you have the right to have doubts about it. But, Michael is used to resorting to methods of insulting those whose opinion does not match his opinion. And it's really annoying!
By what right does he treat you, Itzik, as ignorant?
By what authority does he address the anonymous user with the words "Anonymous user: either offer an alternative or stop complaining.", why?, a human being cannot make difficulties without offering an alternative?? Why does he think that asking a question means complaining?
What is the nonsense with all the other examples he gives?, if something else is true then the dark mass will also be true?, if the orbits of the stars are elliptical and not circular does this prove something about dark mass???.
Michael uses the method of disdaining anyone who raises doubts, especially when it comes to dark matter, but he is smart enough to know that the whole idea of dark matter and energy depends on chicken eggs, so he always makes sure to insert sentences in the style of "wait patiently until real scientists manage to discover dark matter or find a better explanation.", but until he finds a better idea he will insult those who have doubts about the dark mass??, this is really outrageous!
Itzik and the anonymous user, and everyone else, have the right to raise your doubts now and not "wait patiently"!
I am one of the staunch opponents of dark mass and energy. They are basically creatures that come to justify Newton's gravitation formula. It is doubtful that it is identical in form at galactic distances.
If you want, enter my blog and ask your questions without fear. There you can review several articles that show the doubt in the dark mass.
For example "on spiral galaxies, gravitation and dark mass"
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://madaveteva.blogli.co.il/
Itzik:
It turns out that scientists are capable of, in your opinion, the impossible.
You say that the existence of dark matter cannot be proven, despite all the evidence for its existence.
It is true - there is almost never proof of a scientific theory and this is also the case with dark matter - but there is a lot of evidence for its existence and there is no need to do anything to "handle" the explanation of the phenomena that are explained using it. These phenomena become self-evident from the moment one assumes its existence.
There are, of course, many phenomena that dark matter cannot explain and no one tries to explain them using it.
One of the phenomena that cannot be explained by dark matter is the phenomenon of the ignorant looking down on scientists.
Anonymous user:
Either offer an alternative or stop complaining.
We have indeed been to this movie many times.
We discovered all kinds of suspicious phenomena in the movement of the stars and were able to understand that the Earth is not the center around which all the stars revolve.
Maybe here too it will turn out in the end that we are "ignorant of knowledge" as you defined it.
We saw that not everything is explained by means of circular orbits of stars and we were able to discover that the orbits are much more similar to ellipses.
Maybe this too will turn out to be "ignorant" one day.
We discovered that the elliptical orbits can be explained using Newton's laws of gravity.
It did turn out to be "ignorant" when the theory of relativity explained the phenomena better but maybe relativity will also be revealed to hide "ignorance".
We discovered stars we couldn't see (they were – guess what – dark matter as far as the astronomers who hadn't seen them before) through their gravitational influence.
The existence of these stars was proven in retrospect.
At the moment it turns out that the assumption of the existence of dark matter can explain many things.
So yes - maybe we have a "hole in knowledge".
On the other hand, no one has a better explanation for the phenomena, so they are waiting for you to offer such an explanation.
If you haven't then wait patiently until real scientists manage to discover dark matter or find a better explanation.
lion:
Regarding the magnetic field of the Milky Way, you can refer here:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RebeccaRudberg.shtml
Kaluza-Klein theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza%E2%80%93Klein_theory) proposes a five-dimensional space to unify gravity with electromagnetism.
The phrase "Kalutza Klein theories" (in the plural) refers to different variations on this theory that add additional dimensions.
I don't know if there is a direct connection between these theories and string theory.
The fact that these are different theories indicates that no one found a way to deduce one from the other because otherwise it would be the same theory.
To Itzik, we have never seen electrons and protons either.
to the anonymous user,
In science everything is open. But there are possibilities. And if galaxies rotate quickly because of gravity or if there are gravitational unbalance phenomena, and gravity is due to the creation of matter, then it is possible to calculate how much matter should cause these phenomena that we see, and if it is several hundreds of times more than the matter that we see, then it is likely that we do not see everything (dark matter) than to claim that gravity behaves in a convoluted and complex manner over large distances
Important note: ask our Bekenstein what he thinks about the Hammond he developed.
Apparently (from polarization phenomena of stars and emission lines) our galaxy has an extremely weak magnetic field (tens of femtotesla) which is somehow related to the structure of the arms.
There are several candidates for dark matter. A relatively new idea links the idea of additional dimensions from Clause Klein theory (and string theory) to a certain type of dark matter that derives from it, very small spherical dimensions, which create positrons when they collide (I don't understand the process, but it's something like that).
In the end it will turn out that these are electrons that have undergone teleportation (which is somehow related to the Earth's magnetic field) from particle accelerators.
Questions for those who know.
What is the galaxy's magnetic field?
As far as I know Kaluza-Klein unifies, through additional dimensions, fundamental forces, and contradictory theories (relativity and quantum). How do they also explain the existence of dark matter and the ionization of its particles?
Will experiments that show the ionization of particles as above constitute evidence for string theory, or all the above stories and string theory - both require multi-dimensions, but one of them does not constitute evidence for the other?
A request for an answer from someone who really understands:
Are there serious voices in the scientific community who do not accept this whole dark matter story?
It sounds to me like the site theory strikes a second time. I know the indirect evidence that it exists, but it seems to me that too few people think that the same evidence of its existence stems from our lack of understanding of the behavior of gravity and the like.
Everyone is sure we know everything, so this is the only explanation. A quick look at the history of science will reveal that we have already been in this movie. The website was also the only explanation for all kinds of phenomena until we realized that we had a hole in the knowledge, and the new interpretation of what was happening eliminated the need for the website.
Are there any first-rate physicists who think so even now?
Dark matter has become like the god of physics.
You can't see him, you can't prove his existence, you can say that he exists only by believing in his ethereal existence and of course the main thing is that you can blame him and say that he is the responsible factor for all those phenomena that have no explanation.
NASA discovers evidence of black holes in our backyard over Antarctica just as a new president is being appointed who must decide by the end of April whether to continue funding its important programs
Did someone say "fraud point"?
Wow.. Scary in every aspect..