The scientists involved in the XENON1T project were able to measure, for the first time and directly, the longest half-life ever recorded in a particle detector
The heart of the detector in the XENON1T experiment. The copper rings shape the electric field used to transport the electrons
The universe is about 14 billion years old. A very long time in our terms, but a blink of an eye compared to certain physical processes. For example, there are nuclei of radioactive atoms whose decay duration is much longer. An international team of scientists recently succeeded in directly measuring the longest half-life ever recorded in a particle detector. Using the XENON1T detector, which is primarily designed to detect dark matter, the scientists were able to observe the decay of Xenon 124 atoms for the first time. The half-life of a radioactive substance is the length of time after which half of the radioactive atoms in the sample emitted their radiation - and decayed. The half-life measured for xenon 124 is a trillion times longer than the age of the universe. This fact makes the observed radioactive decay of xenon 124 the rarest process ever observed in any detector. The new result provides information for further research on neutrinos, the lightest of the elementary particles whose nature is not yet fully understood. XENON1T is an experimental project shared by about 160 scientists from many countries. The measurement results were published in the scientific journal Nature.
Looking for dark matter
One of the laboratories where scientists are currently engaged in the search for dark matter particles, is located about 1,500 meters below the Gran Sasso mountains in Italy, well protected from radioactive radiation that could produce false signals. Theoretical calculations predict that dark matter, very rarely, "collides" with the atoms of the detector. This is the basic premise for the working principle of the XENON1T detector: its central part consists of a cylindrical tank about a meter long filled with 3,200 kg of liquid xenon at a temperature of minus 95 degrees Celsius. The assumption is that if a particle of dark matter collides with a xenon atom, it will transfer energy to the atom's nucleus, which as a result will "excite" more xenon atoms. If and when this happens, weak signals of ultraviolet light will be emitted from the contact area, which will be picked up by the detector.
The group from the Weizmann Institute of Science, which participates in the experiment, is led by Dr. Rani Bodnik, and with him the faculty scientists Dr. Hagar Landesman and Dr. Lauren Levinson, the research student Gera Koltman and the post-doctoral researcher Hang Qi together with the (former) research students Dr. Ran Ati and Dr. Nadav Friel and the post-doctoral researcher Alessandro Manfredini.
The new research shows that the XENON1T detector is also capable of measuring other rare physical phenomena, such as "double electron capture". The nucleus of an atom usually consists of positively charged protons and neutral neutrons. The nucleus is surrounded by a kind of "shells" in which electrons with a negative electrical charge move. Xenon 124, for example, has 54 protons and 70 neutrons. In a process called "double electron capture", two protons in the nucleus "capture" at the same time two electrons from the innermost atomic shell. As a result, they become two neutrons, and emit two neutrino particles. The remaining electrons in the atom rearrange to fill the two "holes" or "deficiencies" created in the innermost shell. The energy released in this process is carried by means of X-rays ("x-ray") and Auger electrons. However, these signals are very difficult to detect, because double electron capture is a very rare process that is inhibited by "normal" radioactive signals.
the measurement
In the described measurement, the X-ray from the double electron capture in the liquid xenon produced primary light as well as free electrons. The electrons were driven to the upper, gas-filled part of the detector, where they produced another light signal. The time difference between the two signals corresponds to the time it takes for the electrons to reach the top of the detector. The scientists used this time interval and the information from the sensors measuring the signals, and were thus able to reconstruct the position of the double electron capture. The energy released in the decay was derived from the intensity of the two signals. All detector signals were recorded for more than a year. Thanks to a detailed understanding of all the relevant sources of the background signals, it became clear that about 126 events observed in the data were indeed caused by double electron capture of xenon 124.
The current measurement will make it possible to better understand the structure of the nucleus, and this understanding may help in the search for 'new physics'. The measurement demonstrates the impressive capabilities of these detectors, and the fact that in the search for dark matter we may solve other mysteries."
Dr. Rani Bodnik says: "Although the physics governing this rare decay is part of the standard model, we cannot calculate the probability of this process occurring, due to the complexity of the physics of the nucleus. The current measurement will make it possible to better understand the structure of the nucleus, and this understanding may help in the search for 'new physics', which may reveal the mechanism that gives small mass to the elusive neutrino particles. The measurement demonstrates the impressive capabilities of these detectors, and the fact that in the search for dark matter we may solve other mysteries."
The XENON1T experiment collected data from 2016 until the end of its activity in December 2018. Now the scientists are preparing the next stage - XENONnT, which will include a detector with an active mass three times larger, with a significant reduction in background noise, which will greatly increase the sensitivity of the detector.
48 תגובות
Raphael
At any point in the universe if you have accurate enough measuring equipment, you can know what the exact age of the universe is by using the Friedman formula that appears in the link:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/expand.html#c3
The formula connects the temperature of the background radiation and the number of seconds that have passed since the big bang.
Therefore, for example, you could synchronize a simultaneous attack on a distant planet using spaceships that moved in different orbits and different accelerations and therefore their clocks were out of sync. Even the traveling twin from the paradox will no longer be able to claim that his time is as acceptable as the twin's time that remains relative to radiation.
For example, if there are 100 twins and they all move at different speeds but meet on Shabbat at mother's house, each twin's watch will show a different time than his brother's, but mother's watch will show the latest time and never earlier than any other watch. This is also the answer to those who claim that the background radiation time is not unique - it is because a normal clock showing a time higher than itself started ticking even before the big bang that created that clock.
Israel
Would you be willing to explain in simple terms what absolute time is to those who haven't gone through Einstein's original paper of relativity?
Thanks,
Raphael
A natural definition for time can be the density of the universe, number of photons per unit volume for example.
This fits nicely with the assumption that the big bang also created the time that did not exist before it (Hawking) and explains the irreversibility of entropy: a wheel spinning in empty space seemingly returns to the same state after each revolution and nothing seems to have changed between two successive revolutions. In practice, he returned to a less dense universe, and there is no turning back, literally. Entropy always increases.
Since the number of particles per unit volume - photons for example - must be a whole number, even though their total number can be infinite, we got a universe that is necessarily quantum.
A clock or any other mechanism that measures time, moves forward and not backward because the pressure is decreasing and not increasing with each beat (rotation in the case of a wristwatch for example).
If we go over Einstein's original article on relativity:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It seems that Einstein's relative time can be replaced by absolute time according to the definition above. This absolute time is also the time measured for the background radiation, i.e. the time that has passed since the bang.
Therefore, when we reach a part of it, we conclude the lengthening of the times and the shortening of the length:
§ 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times
It seems to derive from the assumption that a beam of light - or a single photon - has an absolute position at a certain moment, something Einstein believed in all his life but contradicts the uncertainty principle.
Israel
I agree with you.
"If you claim that the theory of relativity is incorrect - then, either at least one of the assumptions is wrong, or Einstein made a mistake in the mathematical development. We have no reason to think that the assumptions are wrong…”
Neither assumption is wrong and the mathematical development is correct, and yet this is not the only theory that can be developed from the two postulates of relativity.
There is a problem in the basis of Postulate 2 - it assumes that a photon is in a definite place and time and that it has a definite momentum. A reasonable assumption in 1905, but conflicts with the later uncertainty principle. Hence Einstein's rejection of quantum mechanics, and his constant conflict with it and its representatives. As I recall, he did not accept the uncertainty principle.
However, it is possible to develop a theory that accepts the two experimentally proven postulates, but its conclusions are different from those of relativity but agree well with quanta.
And this does not mean that relativity is wrong - it is a special case of a larger theory that includes non-locality, just as Newton's theory is a special case of relativity.
And we - here we come?
Israel
We do not know how to explain what happens in the interweaving. Einstein thought this contradicted something in the relationship. This is probably not true.
The theory of relativity does not rule out interweaving, as long as there is no damage to causality. The special theory of relativity is not a theory - it is the result of 2 assumptions. The assumptions are consistent with observations, and also with the predictions of the theory of relativity.
If you claim that the theory of relativity is incorrect - then, either at least one of the assumptions is wrong, or Einstein made a mistake in the mathematical development. We have no reason to think that the assumptions are wrong…
I'm with you nice, flowing..
But Einstein, he is the one who presented the problem in the APR article, so if it does not exist as you say, why does the maestro complicate matters unnecessarily?
Let's see what the problem is:
We have two coins that are placed in different rooms. Without external intervention, the chance that in 1000 consecutive tosses there will be a 100% correlation between them is 1000^2.
We can achieve the same correlation in different ways:
1. In every room there is a person who shouts what the coin fell on. The speed of communication is the speed of sound.
2. Each room has a radio device that is connected to a sensor and a mechanical system that arranges the coin in correlation with the other. The speed of communication is the speed of light.
3. The same as above but with mail boxes instead of a radio. The communication speed is the queue speed.
4. The same as above but with intertwined particles. The communication speed is infinite.
We therefore see that communication must exist in order to have 100% correlation - if, for example, the batteries run out in the radios then the correlation will immediately return to fifty-fifty - and from this we conclude that what the intertwined particles do is communicate with each other, like the radio and the ions.
and at infinite speed.
And Einstein - please is he coming?
Israel
The only reason I know of forbidding the transfer of information above the speed of light is the causality problem. What happens in interleaving is not information transfer but correlation between measurements. That there is a correlation is known in advance.
The fact that it is impossible to transfer information with the help of interlacing, does not mean that it is not exactly information?
Let me know what happened in the box, regardless of what actually happened inside the box, right? So no information passed from the box to me.
What is the problem with multiple worlds? Obviously we don't see what happens in other worlds, although we do know... 🙂
I prefer this explanation to any explanation that includes randomness.
Please Araf, ask him, he is the one who wrote the Afar article, not Sahabak.
But if you read the article I attached, the physicists at the Hall hold that non-locality is a fatal threat to special relativity.
Could it be that Scientific American got a little carried away? Or maybe Einstein just doesn't understand relativity? Maybe we send him to read Einstein?
So you believe in multiple universes.. a bit extreme considering that most of us look around and see only... one...
But note that once you get instant communication you no longer need multiple universes, influence on the past, influence on the mouse..
And completely by chance, if the coin fell on a tree inside the closed box, and it is mechanically connected to a tangled particle, then you can know on which side it fell even outside the box, without shouting, without a radio, and without a speed limit.
This is what I call instant communication!
Israel
So why would "unknown information" bother Einstein?
Israel
Why does the passage of "unknown information" bother Einstein?
Information: Barcelona - Madrid 4:1.
Known information: Barcelona - Madrid 4:1, and everyone has heard it before.
Unknown information: Barcelona - Madrid 4:1, but nobody heard about it.
Information: The coin fell on a tree.
Unknown information: He fell on a tree inside a closed box.
There is no contradiction to coziness, but if as it was said here before with the method we described earlier it is impossible to transfer information, then according to Non Kom no information was transferred between us either, and this is contrary to what we agreed:
"You passed on information to me, and this information passed at the maximum speed of light."
Israel
I don't know the concept of "unknown information".
If "something" passed between the particles, and it does not harm the cosality, then there is no contradiction. This is a point that shows that what is passing is not "information", but something else.
The information I gave you is the state the coin fell on - a tree or a tail. There is no way to transfer information - the results of a football match for example - using this method, because you don't know in advance which side the coin will fall on. This is unknown information.
And yet we both get what you're saying:
"You passed on information to me, and this information passed at the maximum speed of light."
So isn't there a contradiction here Lennon - get up?
Now we will measure our particles and according to the measurement results we will arrange the coins. Here too we will get a 100% match, and without the speed of light limit. So what's the difference except your ability to choose in the first case not to shout? Even in this case it is not possible to transfer information, but information between the particles still passed, didn't it?
By the way
The group has power, not the Torah...
Israel
You passed on information to me, and this information went at the maximum speed of light. The situation between the particles is different. If what was "passing" between them was information, then you and I could communicate at super speed. The fact that this is not the case shows that something is different in this case.
The situation is reversed - we see the background radiation at a distance corresponding to the age of the universe, because this radiation was created in the Big Bang. An observer elsewhere will also see the background radiation at this distance - but he will not see the same background radiation that we see.
I wrote earlier - if time depended on speed relative to the background radiation, then we should have felt a non-negligible seasonal effect.
Ariel
https://www.hayadan.org.il/quantic-threat-on-einstein-theory-060912
This is not proof, it is opinion.
A question for you: if Einstein says that non-locality contradicts relativity and therefore non-locality is not possible, then it turns out in an experiment that non-locality exists - then what does this say about relativity?
And if a theory, Newton's theory, passes all the tests for 300 years, does that mean that Newton's theory is correct?
Israel,
I would be happy if you could prove that a Torah that has stood firm for 100 years is wrong. All paradoxes of sorts in private relationships stem from a lack of understanding or misleading wording.
Yehuda,
I will come back again. The power of quantum mechanics is *not* A0. I don't know where you got it from. A quantum eigenstate can change continuously in time even if it takes on seemingly discrete values. Any introductory quantum book will explain to you how it happens.
In addition, it is possible to obtain Maxwell's equation, equations that represent the electromagnetic field at any point in space, according to your claim, Maxwell's theory of gravity has a strength of A1.
Please explain to me why it is not possible that a unifying theory between quantum and relativity will not exist.
So you are saying that if I told you that my coin fell on a tree and you arranged yours accordingly then I did not convey any information to you, even if we managed to arrange our coins 1000 times in a row..
But we did something, didn't we? Otherwise how did we manage to arrange the coins 1000 times without a mistake?
And what did we do if you didn't shout information?
Certainly the background radiation is special. Do you know of another system whose age is exactly the age of the universe and the time in which it flows at the same rate as in the universe and is even measurable?
Israel
I already wrote to you that if the background radiation was a special reference system, then we should have seen a seasonal effect on experiments. The MM experiment is also not affected by the seasons.
This effect should be considerable, yet unmeasured.
Strange, is not it?
I also disagree with you about the information. Information describes the degree of compatibility between complexity and the outside world. In the case of measuring entangled particles, a measurement conveys no information by this definition.
In general - I believe in the interpretation of the multiple worlds. I think this is such a simple explanation that it must be true. It also solves the randomness problem that was bugging me, and all the spectator crap that affects measurements.
"Obviously, in this case it is possible to know how you are in relation to another reference system."
These are not just "other reference systems" but absolute systems. In any body that is in a gravitational field, its clock will tick at a slower rate than in zero gravity, and at a measurable rate. And the background radiation system is no longer a system - it is the system whose time rate is the cosmological clock, and whose 0 point is the beginning of time.
In general, I do not understand this automatic defense of relativity. The man - Einstein - says that there is no way that both quanta and relativity are correct. The subject has been tested in an experiment, and Quantum wins. So what do we know that he didn't know at the time?
Reminds me of the long discussion we had at the time about coins. I'm in one room, you're in the other, I throw my coin and shout to you "miracles, the coin fell on a tree" and you arrange yours on a tree. Then you yell at me "Israel, mine fell on my back" and I arrange mine accordingly.
Then came a long discussion about whether with our shouts we conveyed information or not, and what is information anyway, as if a biologist who talks about the information found in DNA has to study information theory for 10 years..
Israel
If we have radios then there is an external reference system. Obviously, in this case it is possible to know how you are in relation to another reference system.
The background radiation is also a reference system, and we even know the speed of the Earth relative to this system. The theory of relativity is not talking about this case.
The Earth moves at 600 km per second relative to the background radiation, and this speed changes throughout the year. The COBE spacecraft did measure these changes. But - GPS clocks are not seasonally affected, so it can be assumed that the speed relative to the CMB has no effect on the time.
In the first case, I will call you 100,000 km above the earth and we will synchronize our atomic clocks.
After an hour, or a year if necessary, I will call again and see if there is a gap between the hours and how much.
Hence gr, a computer, and I can tell if I'm in a gravitational field and what the strength of the field is exactly.
In the second case I will measure the background radiation in several directions and what is the deviation to red or blue in each direction.
From the Doppler calculation I can know my speed and direction relative to the radiation, and hence my speed and direction relative to any object whose speed and direction data relative to the background radiation are known to me in advance (but not its distance from me).
Note that this experiment puts a question mark (albeit a small one) on the lengthening of time in muons. They always move against the background radiation, and the reverse experiment has never been conducted, meaning that the system starts moving against the radiation and the muions rest relative to it.
Israel
What does a walkie talkie mean? Assume in both cases that you are in a sealed chamber - how will you know now?
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Your determination that:
"There is a finite number of quanta in the universe. Certainly less than a-0.
On the other hand, the theory of relativity treats the world as a continuous world. and its strength is A-1,
Therefore there cannot be a single-valued function between these two. "
requires proof and is not necessarily true.
It is very possible, and even almost certain, that a theoretical proof will be found in the future (and possibly an observational proof as well) that the gravitation field is also quantum.
This possibility should not be dismissed outright, even though the gravity equations known today (general relativity) do not show this.
My words rely on the simple logic that even the largest and heaviest bodies, galaxies, neutron stars and even black holes, are after all composed of a finite number of quantum particles.
Therefore, it is possible (and even almost certain that!!!) it will be possible in the future to prove that the overall physical properties of heavy bodies, described today by the gravity equations known today, are a superposition (aggregate) of all the quantum properties of the particles that make them up (!!! ).
If indeed this is discovered, then the discovery will lead to both a quantum update of the equations of general relativity and a gravitational update of the quantum theory.
This whole thing with the tab is quite strange, but we got used to all the negative changes on the site..
Why simple if possible complicated?
"This is also true for a gravitational field - a body moving along Godsick is not aware of it. For him, time is progressing as usual. This is true even if the body falls into a black hole.'
Mmmm... Give me an atomic clock and a walkie-talkie and I'll tell you the strength of gravity or the acceleration I'm in clearly and precisely.
"According to the theory of special relativity, any body that is not accelerated does not know what its speed is, and for him its speed is 0. The time he measures seems completely normal to him."
Indeed from Wiki:
"The principle of relativity:
The laws of physics do not change when moving from one inertial frame of reference to another inertial frame of reference. Thus, for example, a person in a sealed train car cannot, through any experiment or physical measurement, determine whether the car is moving at a constant speed or standing at rest.'
So as before, give me accurate enough equipment inside that sealed train car, and I'll tell you in your little house Rachel what my speed is relative to Eretz, Mars, Rachel the daughter, Rebecca the mother, Sara the grandmother and Dina the granddaughter. fun?
"Therefore, to say that time slows down because of particles colliding with it, does not match the theory of relativity, or the observations we have."
compatible, compatible If you move fast enough, even at a constant speed, you will evaporate.
Yehuda
Your assertion that the number of quanta is finite is not necessarily true, and it is possible, and in my opinion more likely, that the number of particles is infinite. What's more, in this case the number of parts is A-0.
There should not be a mapping between the values that come from relativity, such as speed and momentum, to the number of parts, so I don't see it as a problem. And on the other hand - some claim that time and space are also quantum values.
I personally tend to believe that the multiple worlds interpretation is the correct interpretation of what we see. And in the end - it's all math 🙂
Israel
According to the special theory of relativity, any body that is not accelerated does not know what its speed is, and for him its speed is 0. The time he measures seems completely normal to him. Therefore, to say that time slows down because of particles colliding with it, does not match the theory of relativity, or the observations we have.
This is also true for a gravitational field - a body moving along Godsick is not aware of it. For him, time is progressing as usual. This is true even if the body falls into a black hole.
Israel
What is between your response and mine?
Yehuda
A combination of relativity and quantum has existed for more than 90 years.
Ariel
To the question about the power of quantum theory:
I took a definition from an article on quantum theory by the Davidson Institute - Weizmann Institute:
"Quantum mechanics describes the world of particles on a tiny scale (in terms of the size of the particles or their energy). It teaches us that in certain systems physical quantities such as energy or angular momentum cannot have any possible value but only integer multiples of a discrete value. "Quanta" is a unit, and hence the name of the theory is derived." End quote.
I understand from this quote that quantum theory divides the universe into a collection of tiny parts called quanta. There is a finite number of quanta in the universe. Certainly less than A0.
In contrast, the theory of relativity treats the world as a continuous world. And its strength is A1.
Therefore there cannot be a single-valued function between these two.
But on second thought I will admit that it is possible and for certain systems in the universe we may indeed be able to find a match in attribution to quanta
but…. On second thought. The wave function that exists in quantum theory gives some sort of statistical "smearing" of the results and maybe this could change the picture?.
How about Ariel?, Nissim?, Israel?, others??
happy Independence Day!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com
Miracles
You will also move slower in a strong gravitational field..
"It completely contradicts the special theory of relativity" - it doesn't.
They tell him that Pushing produced E=mc^2 before Einstein, and instead of being amazed, the man talks about the seasons.
Between us nice and a finch's egg, how would you react if you first read the original article on relativity in 1905? Not in cancellation and Gewald? If most mainstream reactions were at the time.
Israel
"Because of their movement against the particles which causes their internal clock to slow down." – What did you explain here? Why would anti-particle motion affect an internal clock?
In general - this completely contradicts the special theory of relativity. According to the theory of relativity - the particles are not aware of the slowing down of time.
It also contradicts observations - if it were true then we should feel seasonal time slowing down.
Yigal
Medicine has tripled life expectancy. Science describes the world relevant to most of us in an incredibly accurate way. We know where we came from and pretty much the history of our universe.
In my opinion, these are impressive achievements in 300 years
No dark matter found
The origin of life has not been found
No universal flu vaccine has been found
No cancer vaccine has been found
The fountain of youth will not be found
No sign of extraterrestrial life was found
This science is sad and disappointing.
No dark matter found
The origin of life has not been found
No universal flu vaccine has been found
No cancer vaccine has been found
The fountain of youth will not be found
No sign of extraterrestrial life was found
This science is sad and disappointing.
To the anonymous participant from May 7 at 9:52
I absolutely agree with your words and this is exactly my intention in my last response from May 1th at 23:XNUMX am
Pretty!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
yekumshut.freevar.com
How does Pushing explain the lengthening of times?
So not that I'm advocating pushing, but a possible explanation is that bodies in acceleration are in a state of stress - stress - due to their movement against the particles, which causes their internal clock to slow down.
If we define a certain moment as the number of particles per cubic meter, we see that due to the expansion of the universe every moment in it is defined at any point, and that entropy must increase with time.
And if we have already mentioned pushing in the context of relativity, we must not forget that E=mc^2 was predicted years before Einstein using... pushing.
Please respond brutally.
Ariel
First of all, thanks for the method of clicking with the TAB that I used and I was able to respond intelligently.
And regarding your questions:
Please don't forget that today we are dealing with an article about the reality or non-reality of dark matter in the xenon experiment, therefore there is no reason to expand on other topics such as pushing gravity or the theory of relativity. Or to contrast my theory (the simple universe)
All I'm saying is that postulating dark matter as a solution to the problem of the motion of galaxies and then looking for evidence for a solution is the wrong approach. The late Professor Yuval Na'eman, in his research on the Yom Kippur War, claimed in his book "Seder Man Akraai" that this was exactly the mistake Israeli intelligence made before the Yom Kippur War, that is, they first determined that Arab countries would not dare to start a war without sufficient air power and then looked for proof of this theory. Of course, the Egyptians and Syrians found another way to overcome Israeli superiority in the air.
What needs to be done is first of all to decide what the problem is that you are trying to solve, what are all the correct and incorrect options for a solution and then filter out all the unsuitable solutions and be left with correct and suitable options for the solution. I took this approach, and reached some interesting conclusions about the dark matter, but it is possible... Maybe I'm wrong. So not bad and it's a fruitful and interesting debate with non-stupid commenters and most importantly, it's just science!
Therefore, I will be polite and will not refer (almost) to the theory of relativity, to pushing gravity and/or to my theory built on it.
Ariel's comment is another comment that I want to address, and that is:- How do you prove that a theory is correct in the entire universe? Well, it is impossible to prove the correctness of a theory in the entire universe because it is impossible to make measurements in the entire universe, therefore if someone says that his theory is proven in the entire universe, then he... is exaggerating ! (just arrogant).
It is true that Newton also said this, but, the known universe in his time was small up to the planet Saturn, beyond which were the stars of the Sabbath that do not move at all, therefore his theory applied to the entire universe of that time = earth, sun, planets and the moon.
In addition, of course, you can disagree with commenters' words, but please, please do so with respect for the commenter and politely. Not for nothing do I write: please respond gently. Thanks
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com
Hello to miracles
How are you?
You are right Nissim when you say that the evidence of dark matter is found not only in spiral galaxies, but, I hope you agree with me that in spirals the reason for the addition is clear and the amount can be calculated simply.
There is also no need to explain the existence of galaxies without dark matter (eg 94M) which means adding zero amount of dark matter,
But how will you explain miracles, the movement of 891 N or the 51 M vortex galaxy. In these galaxies there are regions that move less than their speed determined according to their measured mass, which means that they need to be subtracted from their mass and not add dark matter to them. No amount of dark matter addition will help here. On the contrary, the dark matter will only harm the calculations (article 80 on my blog)
And regarding your comment about the possibility of changing the laws of gravity, well changing the laws of gravity is only one of twenty possible solutions and I agree with you that the solution is not in amending the laws. (article 75, 78, on my blog)
All the best, miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com
Yehuda,
How does pushing explain slowing/accelerating time under a gravitational field?
Besides the fact that almost all of your theory turns constants into variables in order for the units to match, you don't give an explanation for basic phenomena/ explain how your theory conserves momentum/energy (an infinite flow of particles from any direction sounds obviously non-conserving). In addition you bring alleged experiments to confirm your theory, but they still fall short of what you insist: you cannot perform an experiment more than a few light years away. Even if we assume that your theory is true, how will you prove that it is true in the entire universe?
Please answer the questions instead of claiming that you are being attacked for no reason.
To my father, the webmaster:
I have difficulty writing comments. I can't click on the name and email fields. I have to click over and use tab until I get to the field. Is there a way to fix it?
Yehuda needs to be explained that the evidence for dark matter is not only spiral galaxies. Yehuda also cannot explain how there are galaxies without dark matter...
Cosmologists tried the idea of changing Einstein's laws of gravity, and found that the universe would look very different if the laws were not correct.
And of course - Yehuda's explanation contradicts almost every physical law we know (conservation of momentum, conservation of mass/energy, the uncertainty principle, the entire standard model...)
The possibility of discovering how the mass of the neutrino is determined through this research is an important matter in itself. If indeed this possibility is fulfilled and the desired discovery is found, then this will be a handsome reward for the effort and investment.
The discovery about the half-life of xenon is quite secondary, and is intended to be a gimmick to justify the research and its stated goal - the discovery of a particle of dark matter. It can be said that this zenin belongs mainly to the politics of research institutions and foundations and their scientists.
The stated aim of the study, in itself, seems quite satisfied. It is difficult to understand the justification for such a study as long as it is not based on a hypothesis that contains understood concepts and a general model at least regarding the general nature of what is supposed to be "dark matter". Everything that exists is some kind of "wanted" - "material" that has one and only one property - gravity. In this situation, it is all about speculation, and with this it is impossible to embark on a serious experiment that would unravel or confirm what is requested. In the event that there is no expected emission of light - this will not negate the speculation, because what is your soul - in the event that there is the expected emission of light - it will be impossible to tie it in a causal connection precisely to the invention of dark matter, and not to something else. When you don't really know what to look for, you never know what you'll really find.
Beyond that, I wonder where the limit for xenon amounts will be in the follow-up experiments. In the event that he does not find a finding that can be perceived as communicating in principle the reality of dark matter in the next experiment as well - will the next step be a further doubling of the amount of matter? And then - "more of the same"? Does the "theory" that supposedly underlies these experiments indicate an upper limit of the amount of xenon for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of the desired finding? Probably not, and this is another thing that points to the basic weakness of this experiment: the lack of a minimal theoretical infrastructure, and the fact that it is just a "shot in the dark", which in an unexpected and planned way may lead to progress in other matters, if we are lucky.
Ben Ner, you are wrong and there is even room here to sue you for defamation. The half-life of the 124th element is a trillion times the age of the universe, which is ten to the power of twelve times ten to the tenth, that is, ten to the power of 22. The result I arrive at is a trillion times more sympathetic to me. I think I deserve an apology.
But I won't be rigid with you and maybe it all stems from the excitement that comes from the ceasefire in the south so I'm less angry with you.
Yom Tov A Ben Ner
Yehuda
They are trying and maybe in the end they will be able to prove it
Attention dear readers,
It can be proven by a statistician's calculation that the words of Sabdarmish Yehuda, who claims that dark matter does not exist, are correct with a probability of about 99% (!!!).
explanation:
1]. There are at most 10\/10 people on this site.
2]. Of these, 1, Sabdarmish Yehuda, is certain that dark matter does not exist.
3]. Therefore, the chance that Sabdarmish Yehuda is right in his claim is 10\/10 \ 1.
4]. On the other hand, as we learned from the present article, the chance of decay in a xenon cell is about 12\/10 \ 1.
5]. Hence, the chance that Sabdarmish's words regarding dark matter are true is 100 times greater than the chance of disintegration in a xenon cell.
6]. Since the decay in the xenon cell was measured and calculated, there is a 99% chance that you guessed Sabdarmish correct. parable.
I also discovered an equally important discovery, which is that now you can only respond to the news through the cell phone.
And in our eyes
In the article we are told about many discoveries except one important one which is the persistent lack of dark matter in measurements. point.
I already said - dark matter was irresponsibly invented at the beginning of the XNUMXth century and since then it is the biggest scientific mistake of science. What happened is that there was a discrepancy between Newton's gravitation formulas and the motion measurements resulting from this gravitation, and then instead of throwing away the formula, whoever decided preferred to actually throw away the data and change it with the help of an invented illusory substance, the barren dark matter to keep Newton's sacred formula. I promise you that adding six more tons of xenon will not help because there is simply no dark matter. Newton's gravitation will continue to work up to distances of thousands of light years. Beyond that, the explanation for the measurements will derive from another phenomenon.
Please respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
In short, we have everything here except... dark matter. But don't lose heart, soon they will collect another six tons of xenon and do an experiment and what will they discover?, surprise-.... Nada! (NADA) Why?, because there is no dark matter and never was dark matter, and the birth of this matter was done in sin, and is the biggest scientific mistake of the twentieth century. A substance invented by Fritz Tzviki and others to balance the motion formulas in the galaxies and instead of throwing the formulas away, they change the measured data to fit Newton's "holy" formulas.
Newton's gravitation formulas are at most suitable for distances of a few thousand light years, beyond that one must look for another phenomenon that will move the galaxies.
Please respond gently,
Sabdarmish Yehuda
yekumshut.freevar.com