The scientists were unable to find evidence of the existence of dark matter, but the experiment they performed showed that they were able to develop a way to perform an extremely sensitive measurement, which could measure dark matter particles in the future - if they do exist
An international team of scientists, including scientists from the Weizmann Institute of Science, announced today (Thursday) that they managed to achieve the greatest sensitivity so far, in the search for dark matter particles, which, according to a popular theory, make up more than 80% of the matter in the universe. The scientists were unable to find evidence of the existence of dark matter, but the experiment they performed showed that they were able to develop a way to perform an extremely sensitive measurement, which could measure dark matter particles in the future - if they do exist. About 60 scientists from 14 research institutions in nine countries are participating in the experiment, including Prof. Elam Gross, Prof. Ehud Duchovani, Prof. Amos Barskin and research student Ofer Vitales from the Weizmann Institute of Science.
After a hundred days of data collection using a detector based on liquid xenon, operating deep in the earth at the Gran Sasso Laboratory in Italy, no evidence of the existence of massive particles that interact weakly with matter has been found. These particles, called WIMPs for short, are considered leading candidates to constitute dark matter.
Many cosmological observations consistently indicate that only 17% of the matter in the universe is "ordinary matter" as we know it. The other 83 percent is made of material that does not emit light, so we cannot see it - although its gravity affects its surroundings. This fact agrees to a certain extent with predictions related to the physics of the "world of tiny particles", since a necessary extension of the standard model - the accepted theory in particle physics - leads to the prediction that exotic and new particles do exist, and these particles are perfect candidates to fulfill the role of dark matter.
The search for WIMPs is driven, therefore, both by research in the field of cosmology and by research in particle physics. Another clue to their existence comes from the fact that the calculation of their frequency since the days of the Big Bang matches the predicted amount of dark matter. Behind the study of the WIMPs, and the desire to identify them directly, is the ambition to complete a key missing piece in our picture of the universe.
The nature and properties of dark matter are studied using a variety of approaches and methods that provide only indirect evidence. According to the prediction, the mass of the WIMPs particles is similar to that of atomic nuclei, but the chance of them colliding with the atomic nuclei of normal matter is very low. Therefore, it is very difficult to discover them.
According to one view, these particles form a vast cloud around the visible boundaries of our galaxy, and the Earth, along with the Sun, traverses this cloud on its journey through the galaxy. In this way, a "wind of WIMPs" is created, which may, from time to time, disperse atomic nuclei in detectors located on Earth, leaving tiny amounts of energy, which can be detected using highly sensitive equipment.
In the XENON100 experiment, 62 kg of liquid xenon are used as a kind of target for hitting WIMPs particles. The liquid, at a temperature of 90 degrees Celsius below zero, is contained in a stainless steel container equipped with a cooling system that maintains constant conditions. The experiment is located in the underground laboratory under the Gran Sasso mountain in Italy, where a layer of rock 1,400 meters thick protects the detector from radioactive cosmic background radiation. Layers of radiation-absorbing materials - active and passive - surrounding the detector, give it additional protection. These include 100 kg of active liquid xenon that emits flashes of light when it is hit by radioactive radiation; About two tons of pure copper, 1.6 tons of polyethylene and about 34 tons of lead and water. The detector components are made of pure materials, with the aim of creating an environment as clean as possible from background noise.
Particles that interact with the material in the liquid xenon tank excite and ionize the xenon atoms, thus causing the immediate emission of flashing light in the ultraviolet range. Another emission of light occurs at a later stage, as a result of the passage of the ionized electrons that cross the liquid layers. When these electrons reach the surface, where there is a transition from a liquid to a gaseous accumulation state, they are accelerated into the gas and emit radiation of the same wavelength - 178 nanometers. The two signals, the immediate and the delayed, are picked up by two detector systems, one of which is located at the bottom of the liquid, and the other in the gas above it. The simultaneous measurement of the two signals makes it possible to decipher the energy level and the spatial location where the collision occurred, and to provide information about its nature. The ratio between the two signals and the exact location allow, with a high degree of certainty, to distinguish between signals originating from WIMP particles and background noise.
Results obtained from the analysis of data collected for about 11 days, during the run-up period of the experiment in October and November 2009, led to the determination of a new upper threshold for the rate of interactions of WIMPs particles - a world record in terms of the level of accuracy, for WIMPs whose mass does not exceed that of 80 protons. These findings were published in 2010 in the 105th issue of the journal Physical Review Letters.
Another study aimed at finding the dark matter was carried out for 100 days between January and June 2010, when the data was collected in a "blind" manner, without directing the search to the desired range. After revealing the relevant data, three events (collisions) were discovered in the range where collisions of WIMP particles are expected. The results are within the statistical error range of two expected events, originating from radioactive background radiation. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that evidence of the presence of dark matter has been discovered, but on the other hand, an upper threshold has been set for the intensity of the interactions between WIMPs and ordinary matter. These results provide the most precise field yet known for the existence of dark matter, narrowing the range predicted by the supersymmetry theories of particle physics, which relate to dark matter.
Prof. Gross: "In the XENON100 experiment, the background noise was reduced to a greater extent than any other experiment around the world that tried to trace the dark matter. The internal background noise of the system, which originates from minute amounts of radioactive krypton naturally mixed with xenon, was reduced with unprecedented success, and the performance of the detector gradually improved as a result of trial and error during its operation." While the data is being collected, the scientists are preparing for the next generation of experiments: the XENON1T detector will contain 1,000 kg of liquid xenon as a target for the collisions of WIMPs particles in a way that will increase its sensitivity 100 times, while further reducing background noise.
Scientists from 14 research institutions participated in the current study, from the USA (Columbia University in New York, University of California in Los Angeles, Rice University in Houston); China (Jiao Tong University in Shanghai); France (Sovetec Nantes); Germany (Max Planck Institute in Heidelberg, University of Mainz, Wilhelms University Münster); Israel (Weizmann Institute of Science); Italy (National Laboratory of Gran Sasso, INFN, University of Bologna); Holland (Amsterdam); Portugal (University of Coimbra) and Switzerland (University of Zurich).
228 תגובות
I would like to receive an email update on every new comment on this article
Machel
Does this mean that two very energetic photons can collide to create mass?
Yehuda:
Indeed, "disagree" is a really strong argument. So strong that there is no way to raise any reasoning against it (because it also says nothing about objective reality but only about the state of mind of the claimant).
Ghosts:
Usually two colliding photons will pass through each other but there can be situations - at very high energies - where the collision will create a pair of a particle and an antiparticle.
I don't agree with your point, but we won't turn this into a discussion about gravity pushing and it really doesn't matter if these are the same particles for pushing and pressure. What is important is that the particles define a gas and also later on pressure differences and flow (winds)
What is their strength? I believe that it is sufficient.
If not enough then we will only be left with the dark mass as a solution
If it satisfies, then solving the pressure differences is better in my opinion.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
We've already gone over all of this and anyone who knows math knows that your calculation of the mean free path effect is horribly wrong.
I showed you (but you don't see) that there are two options:
One is that the collision between the pushing gravity particles is elastic and then these collisions have no effect on the formula.
The second is that in this collision energy is lost and then the attraction would decrease with time (and would have disappeared long ago) and not with distance.
Regarding your misunderstanding of the opposition to Pushing Gravity, I can only say that it is simply amazing after the countless refutations presented to you.
What I wanted to show in response 218 is that you are indeed talking about two theories but trying to enjoy all worlds in each of them.
The response does show this on its own but you, in your words here, provide further proof of this when you say you don't want to talk about pushing gravity.
So what two theories and it is agreed.
Now there are two options (which I admit one of them is strange but you talk about it so I have no way to avoid mentioning it):
One is that the two theories are separate theories and then the particles are not gravitational pushing particles but ordinary particles and then there is the problem of drag, specific gravity and the like.
The second is that both theories are actually the same theory and the decision to treat it as two is just another exercise in your exercises (after all, if we are talking about mass-penetrating particles like the neutrino, then it is simply gravitational pushing with all its problems).
I know that in gravity pushing the pressure is proportional to the mass and by mentioning that you are just making a joke of the job.
The pressure issue was simply a convenient way to get an explicit answer out of you as to whether or not there are two theories.
So you said that these are two but you continued to build on the fact that they are one.
Habel
Lm.
Admittedly, I don't want to get into pushing gravity
But I want to address your point in a previous comment:
There I explained to Yehuda that in his first order - that of pushing gravity - the concept of pressure as it is accepted in gases has no meaning (as you know - pressure is the force divided by the area and the area is irrelevant when it comes to particles passing through matter. This claim is also true for neutrino particles and in fact - for any practical need - Talking about neutrino particles is talking about gravitational pushing). End quote
And the conclusion should not be that there is no pressure but that pressure is proportional to mass. The area in question here is the area of the molecules of the bodies and therefore the area in question will be the area of the molecule which is itself proportional to the mass of the bodies.
I must point out that I never understood the great opposition to the idea of gravity pushing that exists in the academy because it seems promising to me.
But really pushing gravity is a very large extension of our topic and I don't think it's worth going into it.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R.H.
I really don't know that.
I admit that I lack knowledge here
What happens, for example, if two photons of the background radiation collide?
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
What happens when two extremely energetic photons collide with each other? Thanks.
Pushing Gravity gives exactly Newton's calculations. But if we also include the mean free path of the particle in the calculations, then gravitation is lost much faster than with Newton and is actually zeroed out in the great distances in space. What remains are only the particles without gravitation but which can give pressure differences.
By the way, it seemed to me from our conversations that you are not a follower of pushing gravity and I remember you arguing with me that the particle space does not change when one body is introduced into it and therefore not when two bodies are introduced, which I objected to.
But why expand on the pushing gravity we don't have and the solar system has gravity according to Newton. We have a debate about what drives the galaxies gravity or pressure difference.
A righteous person in his faith will live
Good night indeed
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Just be clear:
Gravitational pushing with correct calculations (as Le Sage did in 1750) gives exactly the Newtonian gravitational force and then the amount of dark mass required is exactly what is required today.
The need for more dark mass stems only from the messes Yehuda made in Le Sage's theory by wrong calculations.
R.H.:
This is a zigzag that will never end.
The debate started around this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/lhc-doomsday-lawsuit-finally-dismissed-by-hawaii-judge-0210081/#comment-122858
There I explained to Yehuda that in his first order - that of pushing gravity - the concept of pressure as it is accepted in gases has no meaning (as you know - pressure is the force divided by the area and the area is irrelevant when it comes to particles passing through matter. This claim is also true for neutrino particles and in fact - for any practical need - Talking about neutrino particles is talking about gravitational pushing).
Yehuda reassured me that he was not talking about pushing gravity and hence I concluded that he was talking about interstellar gas.
I explained to him that if this is the case - there is a problem of specific weight and drag.
Note when all this happened (and this is long after the argument about the simplicity of the universe).
In different imaginations later - he talked about gas or neutrino particles - all according to desire.
Therefore - I briefly repeat my words:
If, after all, it is about pushing gravity (using neutrinos or other particles), then the vortex story does not solve anything and we are left with all the problems of pushing gravity (in Yehuda's wrong version) - including the need for more dark matter.
If it is interstellar gas - there is a problem of specific gravity and drag coefficients (and everything I wrote in 197 and 198)
Since, as in quantum theory - Yehuda is talking about a superposition of two theories, just talking about one of them causes the collapse of the wave function on the other, I bothered to point out the flaws in each of the approaches.
Good R.H.
But what is the argument about? Even if you are right, we both agree that the netrins are not enough
But the netrins define the universe as a gas, so there are pressure differences. The universe is a gas because of the particles that move from place to place in it.
If the netrins were enough then everything would be perfect.
so good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You are really confusing cause and effect.
Yehuda,
Read what you quoted again. Most of the energy comes out in the form of neutrinos, there is no debate about that, but they are not the cause of the explosion and apparently have no effect on anything else, certainly they do not shake galaxies and rotate them. They are the result of the supernova explosion.
I checked
The following is from the research performed on Super Nova 1987A
The number of neutrino particles measured even matched the theoretical supernova models, according to which about 99% of the supernova's energy (about 1046 Joules) erupts in a flux of about 1058 neutrino particles. The small amount measured is due to the fact that only one out of every 1029 emitted neutrino particles reaches the Earth, and a tiny percentage of them reacts with the Earth in general and with the liquid in the neutrino detector in particular; The fact that they all arrived at the same time confirms the assumption that they originated from a cosmic event.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/סופרנובה_1987
That means most of the super nova's energy comes from netrins
I will continue to delve into this but it is clear to me that not all the pressure will be due to mantrains. But the main thing created pressure.
Happy holiday
Yehuda Sabdarmish
I'll check
Yehuda,
Check yourself. The neutrino flux from a supernova is the result, not the cause.
to R.H.
Did you know that the thing that explodes super novae is this thing that you claim is almost without interaction with matter - the netrino, in large quantities it has the power to explode and disintegrate stars.
Imagine that for millions of years a star will be hit on one side by a little more neutrinos and similar parts than on the other side, do you still think it won't move a little?
It is about quantity as well as quality because these particles moving at a speed close to the speed of light are very energetic.
If for a year they move the star to a speed of one tenth of a millimeter per second, after a million years the movement will already be at a speed of one kilometer per second. And the universe works for much more than a million years!!
I know that it can be expected that in space there will be not only nitrites but also other particles, known and unknown.
To decide in advance that the amount is not enough for the pressure difference because it is not enough for gravity?, what is the connection?
Why are you in such a hurry to dismiss the idea outright?
Trust me R.H. that I thought very carefully about the idea and was not in a hurry to cancel things.
In short, go ahead with the dark mass and dark energy, and we'll both go partying.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And one more thing, I just saw that for a long time it was thought that the neutrino was the dark matter, but it turns out that its quantity is not enough, so even more so that its quantity is not enough to be your "gas".
Because neutrinos hardly react with matter, so how will galaxies rotate how? And at a speed 10 times greater than expected?
Leave Judah, go celebrate our independence and think about another particle for now.
R.H.
Why, why, why, don't you think that the universe is a gas? After all, only the natrines define it as such: - gas, natrine particles?
Well, not bad,
A righteous person in his faith will live
Happy Natrinins holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And you are right R.H. We are not talking here about the well-known interstellar gas, which is mainly composed of hydrogen-protons and whose velocity is small in cosmological terms.
My gas is the one that is made of particles like the netrins which are tiny and are found everywhere, even in our bodies and inside the stars.
Chen Chen for the explanation you gave to L.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Unfortunately, I don't think you've convinced me that the universe is gas (despite the days and weeks), but what do I understand? We've already chewed it up, send it to the newspaper with a proper review from professionals who will decide if your theory holds water. And please post the responses you received. You have nothing to lose. If it is accepted, you earned your bread and honor honestly, and if the article is not accepted, you will be where you are today in the comment column of the scientist. So come on.
Gentle enough for you?
R.H.
About 195
That is, some of the particles are at least known such as the netrins, and therefore define the universe as a gas
I don't think the netrins alone are enough, but I'm sure there are lots of other particles moving in the universe
And it is possible that the photons that exist in the universe in huge quantities will also behave as a gas, a gas of photons. You need to check if the photons of the background temperature cannot play a role here.
Now it remains to find out if a lot of power is needed to move the galaxies and the answer is that you need a very tiny power because it will operate for millions of years or billions of years, it will already reach the results and move the galaxies
You are dismissing things outright
It takes me days and weeks to convince that the universe is a gas and then more days that there are pressure differences and in the end it remains to convince that the differences will be significant
Listen R.H., I may be right in the end.
Happy holiday and respond gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
M. You amaze me, and how do you say that dark mass and energy cannot create a world?, 96 percent of the world does not count?
Happy holiday
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Michael
Regarding your response to 193, we are left to find out who is more the hero of the dark mass or the holy one, blessed be he.
I will tell you in advance that this is an unfair question, but I am sure that if our Lord God had known the dark mass and energy, he would not have needed the name, blessed be he, and the exodus from Egypt would have been a cosmological miracle
I'm just in the mood for Independence Day
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
R.H.:
But the dark matter hypothesis - as long as it was baryonic matter is exactly the same as the extra star hypothesis.
What detracts from the beauty is the special properties we had to attribute to that dark matter (such as the lack of interaction with electromagnetic radiation) but in view of the observational evidence we didn't have many options: we had to assume that such matter (the existence of which was predicted by certain theories) does exist or add all kinds of constants to the theory existing and still remain with the problem.
Therefore - of all the options - it is still the most beautiful.
But if we have already moved on to taste and smell - then let's stop arguing 🙂
Michael,
True, a solution based on the existence of a non-luminous star is "beautiful" because it relies on existing knowledge and familiar things. The dark matter solution, however, seems forced. There is no explanation based on what exists, so we assume the existence of new material that has not been described, and it is not "beautiful". It's Maxwell's elves. But again, this is how science progresses and our wishes are of no importance.
R.H.:
Yehuda has already answered these questions in the past, but please ask again.
The reservations I raised also appear here for the umpteenth time - but he never replied to them.
He has two different theories and as I wrote to you in an email - you are mixing them up. It is possible that Yehuda will jump on the bargain and now offer something new just to hit me but I guess if that happens I will find what he said before.
In the "simple universe" he invents a new particle, but - as I showed him - the errors he makes in the "simple universe" (with all the dark matter which is a central component in it and which is not intended to change gravity but to create it) mean that the force of gravity will decrease and actually require more Normal dark mass.
When I pointed this point out to him he started talking about gas pressure differences between stars.
I don't understand, by the way, what the outrage is about.
I didn't let you decide what's important to you?
I only mentioned mine other things seem important.
I guess I'm allowed to decide what's important to me. No?
All the theories that have ever been proposed as an alternative to dark matter were based both on new constants (more than one) and on guesswork data and in this sense - of all the theories discussed - precisely that of dark matter is more beautiful.
As I said - there may be people who would prefer a change in the laws of gravity to explain changes in star orbits (compared to the results of the known gravity) but most scientists see the hypothesis that there is a star out there that we don't see - a more beautiful solution than a change in the laws of gravity. So much more beautiful - this is a way we use today to identify planets outside the solar system and conclude that there are such stars even when the changes in the orbit are the only thing that indicates this.
Michael,
Maybe you'll let me decide what's important to me and what's not? I happened to read Yehuda's theory and he does not claim that it is the interstellar gas but a new type of particles smaller than any known even Planck size whose size he extracts from the speed of light (as was done in the past with ether). Therefore, if he invents a new particle, I tried to understand why he thinks his theory has an advantage over dark matter. After all, he resents the fact that new particles are invented for the purpose of settling observations.
Regarding the beauty of the theory, an "unbeautiful" theory is one in which a new constant must be added or rules regarding all kinds of exceptions or the existence of new particles must be assumed to explain observations and experiments. A beautiful theory, on the other hand, explains everything in one simple formula. And so I understand Ehud's feelings, after all it seemed that the standard model explains all the particles and suddenly you have to add another type of particles that does not derive directly from the model. Of course it doesn't change anything about correctness or incorrectness and if one day the dark particles are discovered it will be a huge discovery.
Of course there are other facts that do not fit with the interstellar gas nonsense.
Even if we ignore the fact that the only reason that can create pressure differences is gravity and this actually creates a stronger pressure inside the galaxy - which is contrary to the requirements of the nonsense theory - still (as mentioned - even if we ignore the above) the fact remains that for some reason - precisely in the center of the galaxy pressure is observed The higher the gas and the pressure inside the galaxy is high enough for stars to form there - which does not happen outside the galaxy.
R.H.:
And in relation to your question to Yehuda - you are not focusing on what is important.
Is it a problem for him to say that this is what is known as "the interstellar gas"?
He just ignores - as has been proven in past debates - the fact that the interstellar gas cannot create the results he attributes to it.
among the rest:
1. In order for there to be a vortex, there must be a constant negative pressure in the centers of the galaxies (without this negative pressure, this will be canceled out by the particles flowing there)
2. A vortex does not give the bodies caught in it the velocity of its particles. A body caught in a vortex moves in an accelerated motion and its movement is affected by its specific weight and its shape (the shape affects the drag coefficient which in turn affects the force acting on the body). This is in contradiction to the fact that all the components of the galaxy move in a coordinated and orderly manner.
R.H.:
We all like "beautiful" theories, but the reason for this is not their correctness.
I explained the reason in the article I wrote about the sense of beauty:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/
Besides - there is nothing ugly in the dark matter theory.
All in all, there is an application here of the kind of conclusions that were successful in the past when planets were discovered based on deviations in the orbits of other stars and the use of a type of particles that (beautiful) physical theories predict their existence.
sympathetic,
A small note
Note that the required numericals does not arise from the fact that the physics here is "not good"
There is still a very small number of basic laws - in the case of dark matter, only the equations of relativity for matter plus the weak force equation for them and that's it. But as soon as you talk about multi-particle interactions that are not in equilibrium - things get complicated easily - just like all of chemistry is terribly complicated, even though apparently it all stems from Coulomb's law and Schrödinger's equation (roughly).
And regarding your question regarding the predictions about the expected amount of dark matter - I have no idea how to do it,
These are the predications of high energy people that are really not my field.
Yehuda,
You state a lot of things in 185 and I still haven't understood what the fundamental difference is between a dark mass consisting of unknown particles and pressure differences or whatever you call them caused by unknown particles. In both cases, the existence of mysterious particles that have not been described so far should be assumed.
The sentence is especially strange to me: "The particles of the dark mass are unknown and of the normal and known pressure difference" Which of the known particles create pressure differences in space that can rotate galaxies???
Ehud, I, like you, think that the "beauty" of a theory gives confidence about its correctness and that the gut feeling that "something is wrong here" does indicate that. For example, when the periodic table of the elements was described, its beauty struck researchers. Afterwards, when the hadrons were discovered, suddenly there was a whole jungle of particles and many had the feeling that "something was wrong". Until the standard model was offered which suddenly in an amazingly beautiful way made order.
Did you notice that you are talking nonsense?
The dark mass is not an all-powerful being that can be assigned any task. She obeys definite laws and everything she can do is limited by those laws.
A dark mass cannot create the world, it cannot create man, it cannot harden Pharaoh's heart and it cannot even make you a reasonable person.
you noticed m. That belief in the name is somewhat similar to belief in the dark mass? They are always there to help as much as needed and where needed.
I don't believe in the name even though I really want to. As with the dark mass.
Let's see what new articles will become known
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
This is how a real scientist works.
He does not choose a conclusion because he likes it, but because it corresponds to reality, and if it corresponds to reality, he accepts it even if he doesn't like it.
Once someone contacted the "Freedom" website with the question "What is so good about being secular?".
They also asked me to respond to the question and the title of my answer was "I can't choose what to believe" when the detail inside was that the belief was forced on me by the facts.
That's how it is with rational people.
sympathetic
On your way to the dark faith, you suffer so much, and apologize, you are literally raped to believe it. compassion.
take it easy!
And regarding the questions you asked in response 188, the answers to all of them are to fit the data to Newton's gravitation formula.
Be strong and courageous
Laila Tunev
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
See my answer to Tzvi.
Given that the dark matter theory has a predictive ability, I drop my strong opposition to the theory. I will be disappointed if it is indeed the final cosmological theory but I am forced to accept it today not because it is the only one suitable for all observations but because it has predictive ability and its predictions have been confirmed by observation.
I do believe that the question of who gave the dark energy the energy in the first place must be answered, since a cosmological theory should be comprehensive and not only describe the universe today, but fit the models of the beginning of the universe.
Therefore it is not clear to me why there are fluctuations in the density of the dark mass? What is their distribution? What is the kinetic energy of the dark mass? I assume that the dark hexagram is not like g in thermodynamic equilibrium because the relaxation time to the state of thermodynamic equilibrium depends on three-body collisions and is too long. If so what is the thermodynamic state of the dark mass. Regarding its energy loss through interaction with ordinary matter, three-body interactions are needed here as well and in addition the density of ordinary matter is much lower so it seems to me that the probability of this is negligible.
In sum, I am still not satisfied with the dark matter theory, but in the current situation it is only a personal gut feeling, since according to your claims and Zvi's claims, the theory has received observational confirmation of its predictions.
deer,
After reading your answer it became more clear to me why I am against (psychologically) the dark matter theory. The reason lies in the sentence "that in a field like cosmology that does not rely on one winning equation but on lots and lots of numericals". The beauty I find in physics is the ability to explain complex phenomena using a basic guiding principle that is sometimes expressed in a single equation. In contrast to engineering fields based on numericals where the description of every detail in the system is important and the result obtained depends on an accurate description of the system and the ability to calculate. Under the dark matter theory, the structure of galaxies depends on the parameters (I assume relatively a lot) and the ability to correctly describe them numerically. The observed dynamics.
Since you are more knowledgeable in the field than I am, I am forced to accept your claims:
1. The dark matter theory not only fits all the observations so far in retrospect, but it even predicted phenomena that were later verified by observation.
2. There is currently no other theory capable of explaining or describing the entirety of astronomical observations other than dark matter.
Relying on both claims, I am forced to agree that the dark matter theory is indeed an observationally based theory and not a linguistic one, a polynomial theory that adapts itself to observations.
Given the validity of these claims, I still believe, although with greater doubt, that it is possible that the dark matter theory is a mistaken model that covers up a basic lack of understanding on the subject of gravitation.
First I thought and I still think now, with less confidence, that the theory of gravitation is facing a scientific revolution when the reason for this is the need to:
1. Dark mass.
2. Dark energy.
To explain observations and in addition to this a theoretical inability to build a theory of quantum gravitation. I see these facts as shortcomings of the theory. On the other hand, you claim that with the addition of dark mass and dark energy, almost no questions remain open in cosmology, and it can also be argued that the problem of quantum gravitation is only academic and is solved within the framework of string theory.
Another possibility that comes to my mind is that the dark matter theory is actually a kind of model that describes reality in a way that gives correct but baseless results, this is in analogy to, for example, the theory devised by Maxwell. Maxwell had a mechanical theory to describe electromagnetic radiation. The mechanical theory was the basis that allowed Maxwell to obtain his famous equations but later the mechanical concept was found to be wrong. In a similar way, one can think that maybe the dark matter theory makes it possible to get the right dynamics, but it is only a step on the way to a more basic theory, and today we lack the basic objects in this theory, such as the electromagnetic field in the description of light waves.
The dark matter theory also raises a lot of questions that I don't know the answer to, maybe you can answer some of them for me (although I am aware that this is not exactly your field of activity):
1. Why will most of the matter in the universe be dark, or what determines the amount of dark matter?
2. What determines the distribution of dark matter in the universe or its fluctuations?
3. The criterion for homogeneity and isotropy in the universe to the best of my knowledge (the least on the subject) that there is a region in space above a certain mass, does this criterion include the dark mass?
4. Why is the dark energy of the order of magnitude of the dark mass in the universe?
5. Why is dark energy so small if it is attributed to vacuum energy which is supposed to be enormous?
R.H.:
I understand that you have already realized that nothing will help.
The man clings to theories that have been proven wrong and will try to sell them as long as he can type on the keyboard.
By the way R.H.
My particles do not change the gravitational constant. They behave like a gas in SA and therefore create pressure differences. They don't care about gravity
L. H.
Occam's razor can help
The expansion of the universe - dark mass that slows down the expansion, requires the invention of dark energy. The pressure difference does not need and even explains the acceleration
The distribution of the dark mass in the galaxy is strange and the pressure difference is logical and continuous
The particles of the dark mass are unknown and of the normal and known pressure difference
Newton and the dark mass cannot explain a large decrease of the velocity in the galaxies M51 and N891 in certain regions of the galaxies. Pressure difference yes (the article was not scientifically approved and was published after a review in the association's astronomy brochure)
The dark mass does not act according to the isotropic rule in the universe, the pressure difference does.
The dark mass has no prediction the pressure difference has
For example
M94 minus means predicts the existence of a galaxy that will rotate more slowly than explained by Newton. No dark mass will help here (but negative dark mass.?)
Prediction of anti pollution. Predicting the Magnus effect in the movement of galaxies, and more
enough?:
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
What is the fundamental difference in your opinion between explaining and believing that the gravitation equation is unbalanced because there is additional mass carried by particles that have not been measured to date (dark matter) and explaining and believing that the equation is unbalanced because of the existence of tiny particles that have not been measured to date that create a pressure difference and as a result the gravitational constant changes (your simple universe) ? What is the advantage of the second explanation over the first, after all there is not even Ockham's Razor here.
I ask seriously and not to tease you.
And besides, why do you think I believe in the Hammond theory? I don't believe in it. point. And you don't need to convince me that it's not true. Neither eight nor eighty years.
Yehuda
L. h ghosts
It doesn't seem to me that the dark matter is inside the baryonic matter because it is distributed in the galaxy in a completely different way than the baryonic matter. The dark matter is mainly concentrated beyond the boundary of the galaxy in the surrounding gas clouds, a place where there is almost no baryonic mass.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
About 8 years ago an article was published here on the website that refutes the central claim of the MOND theory.
How long will it be before you realize that the theory is unfounded? Another 8 years? Another 80 years?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/darkmass-240603
(By the way, in my opinion the dark matter was created from the baryonic matter, I can elaborate if it interests you..)
deer,
A question I asked before. In view of the fact that in galaxy M94 there seems to be no dark matter, is it possible that it is not found here either and therefore is not detected? Is it possible that until we reach his territories we will not be able to check him directly? According to the theory, should dark matter particles even be detected in a particle accelerator or in other tests?
No - I don't think so - and probably not to the rest of the world either.
But again - do as you wish
deer
That is, you prefer only one letter M. Why?, what's wrong with G, for example. Any change you make to your beloved letter M, will also be suitable for my beloved, the letter G. Both stand in the counter in Newton's gravitation formula. Instead of increasing M-mass tenfold, you will increase G tenfold for large distances. The same thing came out in the calculations. No dark mass.
But maybe you have extenuating circumstances because you like McDonald's. Or maybe Michael?? As you know, Cassiopeia's shape is…..M ?
I have no protection, all ethics have the same rights!
And by the way G is not a solution. Fell in the elimination I did.
In short, twenty options I checked. Doesn't that seem scientific to you?
Not bad
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Counting letters in an equation and seeing which of them you can change is not a competing scientific theory
Good night
deer
You are idealizing the situation a bit.
It doesn't seem to me that there are only two options for the solution (of which only one is correct)
It seems to me that there are many more options
But so be it
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic,
I have the impression that you tend to overestimate Tully Fisher - this is an empirical ratio, with fairly large ERORBARS (judge for yourself http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1977A%26A….54..661T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf)
There are many empirical relationships of this kind that are not explained in astrophysics and they usually have a hundred explanations none of which are perfect and some of them are somewhat correct.
So I'm not saying that explaining Tully Fisher is a small thing - but you shouldn't get carried away - overall it's about something that science can do just fine without (even Wikipedia, which barely devoted a page to it).
And regarding your polynomial theory.
Dark matter explains a lot of things. The entire modern concept of galaxy formation (which is well supported by observations) is based on the CDM model in which dark matter (as well as dark energy) is a very dominant component. These theories are not "polynomial theories" but also predicted things in the past that can only be observed today. The telescopes are getting better and with them the data are getting better and overall are in line with the theory.
Of course not everything is perfect, but cosmology is definitely a fairly well-established theory and it is very strongly based on dark matter.
Tully Fischer is nice - but when in front of him stands our entire understanding of the formation of galaxies, their dynamics, etc. - probably most of those involved in the field decide against him and as someone who does not deal with it directly, I prefer to go with the quantity (and probably the quality as well, although this is harder to gauge). By the way, it's worth emphasizing that in a field like cosmology that doesn't rely on one winning equation but on lots and lots of numericals, the quantity is very important because to a large extent it determines how many tests the theory has passed (I mean that Mond had a lot more simulations done than to say Apple).
To your question why a serious person like Beckenstein continues to deal with theories that are probably not true - because they are not necessarily not true. They probably do not fully explain the effects they were supposed to explain in the first place, but probably Bekenstein Milligrom & Co. do think they have created a beautiful Salaf-consistent Torah and they are in no hurry to bury it. It's a good thing - many ideas that were finally proven to be correct or useful went through strange incarnations during their lives and this may also happen to Hammond and maybe on the other hand, she will be buried in the "incorrect ideas proposed by successful and respected smart people" drawer.
As for observations,
As I understand things, gravitationally - dark matter will not be detected directly - at least not until something very big in our technology changes, and you as a physicist can do the simplest finger calculation and understand why. Your demand for a laboratory experiment in which a suitable particle will be found - can therefore exist, even in theory, only if the dark matter reacts with the weak interaction (and this is what all kinds of particles believe) - in the meantime they are trying, and not for 70 years but much, much less.
And finally,
Since the debate will not be decided within the framework of science and it is not true that it will do so, it is only appropriate that the readers of science understand that the situation today is not of two equal theories competing with each other - but something completely different.
On the one hand, there is a well-established theory supported by almost the entire community of cosmologists and, as far as I understand, also the community of elementary particle people, which although has not been directly proven, has managed to explain countless observations retrospectively and not retrospectively.
And from the other side there is a nice little idea, which was started by two Israeli researchers and which explained two and a half things nicely and failed in many other places and therefore, has not bought supporters for now (not even Judah as it turns out now).
sympathetic:
First of all - the theory did predict observed results.
It was formulated because of the rotation speed of the galaxies and was confirmed by the fact that the gravitational dusting matched the mass estimates obtained from the rotation speed.
The sling cluster was also not a basis for formulating the theory and what happened there confirms it remarkably.
Therefore there is confirmation - both for quantity and quality.
In my opinion, Beckenstein agrees on the matter of quantity. He may argue about the exact amount but he accepts the argument that no change in gravitation can explain the behavior of the universe without assuming the existence of a large amount of dark matter.
Elsewhere he wrote to me that in his opinion - most of the dark matter (baryonic) is inside the clusters and not inside the galaxies. I don't think he was talking about intergalactic planets. He was talking about baryonic matter in a gaseous state.
As I said - the observations of the sling cluster contradict this assumption and as I also said - when I presented this question to Bekenstein he did not answer (and not out of forgetfulness - even in the correspondence we had later I presented the question to him and did not receive an answer or reference to this question).
It is true that in normal material - non-uniformity causes instability which increases non-uniformity, but - as you said - it starts from non-uniformity.
So there is unevenness.
Now - as Zvi explained - although the kinetic energy is conserved, it can pass from one body to another.
When I wrote my response about the non-loss of energy in dark matter, I referred to the total energy and the fact that the particles are very small, and what I said was true and actually quite sufficient, but while reading Zvi's words, another thought occurred to me, and that is that since there is an exchange of kinetic energy between bodies - dark matter can also lose energy for the benefit of the material The bully and the latter - with a good luck that comes from having a heart of stone - can lose it as electromagnetic radiation.
Therefore - here too - the lack of uniformity will increase in the end.
And in relation to the question "Who gave them the energy in the first place?" There can be many answers - after all, the Big Bang gave energy to everything it created. How did he give energy to photons? I think the question is interesting but does not belong to us in this discussion.
It may also be that in the density that prevailed in the big bang there was even a lot of energy exchange.
Michael,
I think I was only partially understood in my words, so I will repeat some of them in an attempt to clarify.
The serious scientist who doesn't accept leaving the dark matter, if you didn't understand what I'm saying, is Prof. Bekenstein.
First I will explain what the dark matter theory is which I doubt and then I will show that in my opinion Beckenstein holds the same opinion.
The theory as far as I'm concerned says: most of the matter in the universe is dark matter consisting of particles that are unknown to us.
The theory talks about quantity, i.e. most of the matter in the universe is dark and about quality, it is about matter made up of particles that are unknown to us.
For me, if it turns out that the astronomical observations can be explained using known particles and that their quantity is much smaller, I will consider this a failure of the dark matter theory. As I already wrote the fact that there is dark matter for example planets is a fact accepted by everyone. The debate is whether there is dark matter made up of particles that are unknown to us and what is its quantity? In my opinion, your quote shows that Prof. Beckenstein also holds the same opinion. Beckenstein writes that even if we believe in MOND, the theory is still unable to quantitatively explain the observations and for that dark matter is needed, but the following two points should be noted:
1. First, Beckenstein claims that there is no need for new type of particles to explain the observations and that it is possible that dark matter is not as mysterious as is currently thought.
2. Given that MOND is indeed correct, much less dark matter is needed than is currently estimated.
Therefore, I see Beckenstein, who for me is one of the leading scientists in his field, opposes the dark matter theory and I do not intend to enter into a debate about which scientist is greater than whom.
As a side note, the above discussion is similar to the discussion surrounding global warming in which Prof. Nir Shaviv claims that only a part of global warming is caused by humans (I think he attributes this to one third or two thirds of the total warming) and therefore he is seen as opposing the theory of global warming. In the framed article I am not an enthusiastic supporter of Shabiv's theory. I apologize for deviating from the main topic.
Now to a central point in my argument that you probably didn't understand because of the way I formulated it. Confirmation of a scientific theory comes from the fact that the theory predicts phenomena that have not yet been observed and that are observed later. In this respect, the dark matter theory was not confirmed, it did not predict results that have not yet been observed. In hindsight, the theory is able to explain astronomical findings, but it does so in retrospect with an emphasis on hindsight! It is not about confirming the theory, but about its ability to get along with all the extant exponents to this day. I will try to explain this point by analogy. Let's say that there is a function that describes a physical fact. Let's say that there is a theory that says that this function must be a polynomial. The polynomial theory works every additional measurement point of the function, the polynomial theory will simply adjust it by raising the power of the polynomial. There is no truth in the polyum theory, but it is able to fit all the experiments in retrospect. The only predication of the dark matter theory is that the dark matter is made of particles unknown to us and this single predication has not yet been confirmed. I don't want to see dark matter, but to be convinced it is necessary to find a new particle in a laboratory experiment whose properties will match the properties required to match the astronomical observations. Let's find the electron or any other particle.
In an article dedicated to MOND, there was a prediction that was confirmed MOND predicts the Tally-Fisher relation which is indeed found in the observation, but as mentioned, galaxies were also observed in which this relation does not exist. Does dark matter have a prediction about a certain ratio that should exist in galaxies or does it, like the polynomial theory, change the data with each additional observation?
Now about uniform distribution in the universe. The reason we don't see a uniform distribution is that non-uniformity in density leads to instability, which further increases the non-uniformity. Galaxies are formed because gravitational collapse leads to the loss of energy by radiation which leads to continued gravitational collapse and thus increases the inhomogeneity. According to your claim such a thing will not happen for dark matter and therefore it should be homogenously dispersed. You also did not answer my question as to what gives the dark matter particles their initial kinetic energy and in addition I would point out that the dark matter maintains only a grotational reaction, its distribution after a long enough time should have been like that of a gas at a given temperature since elastic collisions would have taken care of the correct equilibrium distribution. As you know, gas density in a room is quite homogeneous and isotropic.
Michael and Ehud (and thanks to Yehuda for the shortcut to the long-awaited approval).
As for your responses 138, 140 et seq. on the question of the gravitational collapse of dark matter.
In the process of three-body gravitational interactions or more, matter can lose kinetic energy and thus collapse. In fact, the situation that will be created is one of equal distribution of energy between the various bodies - and thus the small bodies will receive more kinetic energy and will mostly become unbound, while the heavy ones will have less kinetic energy and thus will fall to the center and form larger and larger lumps. In equilibrium, a very large part of the matter will collapse into a singular point while another part will be unbound.
The question is the typical arrival time for equilibrium and for dark matter this time is very long - much longer than the age of the universe. The reason is that the action cross section for gravitational interaction of such small particles is very small, so there will be almost no three-body collisions that would allow dissipation of the energy and reaching equilibrium. In baryonic material, this problem is solved by connecting to larger blocks that have a much larger cross section. The point where dark matter actually differs from baryonic matter is its inability to connect to large clumps and this is due to the lack of interaction between its particles (with the exception of the gravitational interaction which, as mentioned, is too weak).
As for the question of the existence of galaxies with different concentrations of dark matter.
I will give you an intuitive explanation which I am not XNUMX% sure of its correctness, but I am quite sure that it captures the main physics behind the processes (the mechanism is called supernova feedback). A full, serious and quantitative explanation is often supported by terribly heavy simulations.
Suppose a block of dark matter mixed with some baryonic matter, and like everything in nature - we give it an initial angular momentum that is not zero.
As a result of electromagnetic interactions, the baryonic matter will lose angular momentum (photons, as we know, carry angular momentum) and thus be able to sink to the center or escape - some this way and some that way. The dark matter which does not participate in the electromagnetic interaction will have a very difficult time losing angular momentum and thus will remain in the halo of the galaxy and surround it.
The baryonic material that has sunk into the center and its density is now great, will eventually start to form stars and for astrophysical reasons the first stars to be formed will be very massive and will usually end their lives with impressive explosions. These explosions will blow away gas and thus the galaxy will get rid of part of its gas.
The question of how much of the gas will escape and how much will remain depends mainly on the depth of the galactic potential pit (this is because the intensity of the explosions does not depend on the galaxy but on the star and this is typically the same in all galaxies). Naturally, small galaxies will have more difficulty storing the gas from the larger galaxies and it turns out that this effect is very significant and explains well the distribution of the observed galaxies.
to R.H.
A misunderstanding between the two of us and I apologize
I will explain again
I thought you thought I was a follower of Professor Milgrom's Hammond theory. I am not a follower of this theory point. Disliking Milgrom is just a form of expression. Actually he was very nice when I met him several years ago.
In addition, I am also not a follower of the dark matter theory. point.
I hope I am clearer now
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda 167,
You see? That's exactly what I'm talking about. What does it matter if you like Milgrom or not? do you like einstein Do you like Newton? Did you know one of these? What is the connection?
After all, there is a scientific puzzle of the first order that has not yet been solved. People offer different solutions, but it is clear to everyone that no solution has yet been proven. You can more or less accept one of the solutions or propose your own solution under the accepted rules (which will explain all the observations and give future predictions). But between this and "love" or "not in my head"? What are we children in the sandbox?
And really - it's better that you get off here and next time - it's better that you don't get on at all
Yehuda:
As usual - you turn the creator.
Ehud started the discussion and I haven't returned to him since he asked to get off of it.
The debate since then is a new debate and it is the debate about who started the debate.
Your whole argument is about personal stripes - maybe you should read what you write before you talk about others.
to R.H.
I don't like Milgrom and he's not on my mind at all
M.
This is your method
Can't find anything to say about my last comment and accuses me of being a dandy, why go to personal lines?
And again you can guess what Ehud thinks
Maybe Ehud started with who is more of a hero, but he asked several times to get off that
So what?, you punish him
I see you are going to accuse me of everything,
I better get off here
What a beautiful sun is shining outside
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Gentlemen, if I may, I enjoy the discussion and read it with interest and I also learned many things from it.
However, one note. It's a little ridiculous to me that a scientific discussion about other people's results (because none of the debaters, as far as I understand, made the observations or developed the theories, so there really shouldn't be personal sentiments here) descends into personal lines. Especially since it is clear that this discussion will not solve the question of whether dark matter exists or not. Yehuda, what is the great hatred for the theory? Do you have shares of the competing theory? Suppose it turns out that Milgrom is right, is there a reason to party for the dark matter vapor?? It's a bit ridiculous isn't it? And if dark matter is found, will you mourn? After all, it's a win win situation that each of the scenarios will be interesting and happy in terms of scientific progress, isn't it?
And one more thing for Judah:
Already many comments all you are doing is just trying to start a war.
You don't contribute anything to the discussion and you only force me to repeat the objections I expressed to what Ehud said.
It is not pleasant to hear objection to your words and Ehud is certainly not pleasant to hear the same objection over and over again just because of your ignoring what is being said.
In the end he will still be angry with me even though you will be guilty.
A rascal remains a rascal.
Haven't you noticed yet that the one who started the debate about whose friend is more of a hero was Ehud and he did it without even pointing to his friend?
Besides - you show a very basic lack of understanding of everything involved in science when you compare accepting a theory because it fits with reality with accepting it because of a stomach ache.
The rejection people felt towards relativity as well as the rejection they felt towards quantum theory was due to stomachaches when the observations actually supported them.
In this sense you and Ehud are similar to those who rejected them because all your considerations are stomachaches and precisely the one who accepts them is the one who refers to the observations.
The comparison to the field of politics is nothing short of delusional.
Scientific progress has been made many times by individuals who dared. Einstein said what he said and he didn't have many fans at first. Most of the academy advocated Newton.
What are you dragging into a childish argument of "my friend is more of a hero",
You, M., choose to act on behalf of a party that you don't even know ("Or" or something like that), can someone come and say that it should not be considered? You will be angry if I tell you to leave it because most of the great leaders came from other parties, so they must be right .
Science is not democratic what to do
Those who move things will be the few, the bold ones
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And in relation to the index of the quality of the scientists - the amount of publications and citations is taken into account when awards are given to them, so this index is not needed for an award-winning scientist like Penrose.
Another irrelevant consideration that was presented is the treatment given to the articles that a scientist wrote recently (perhaps because his fertility has decreased and perhaps because the physical difficulties nevertheless have an effect) when considering his position in relation to a subject that has been familiar to him since the dawn of his youth and where his position was formulated when his articles gained great fame.
To my father
The people should be warned that it is forbidden to use the word woo, woo, door, woo on the site, because then their response will have to wait for approval
(:))
Good Day
Yehuda
And one more thing - Ehud:
If there is an argument that you do not want to be dragged into - it is better not to initiate it.
The debate about the quality of the scientists (Judas, you must be happy now that your previous comment was automatically blocked) began in your response 149 in which you wrote "Regarding the examples of good scientists who believe in dark matter, which you brought, you did bring the scientists who write the best popular science, I do not believe that they are The best professionals today and I appreciate Prof. Beckenstein more. Although your choice indicates the sources of your knowledge on the subject, I will not argue with you about who and who are good or better scientists."
I understand that as long as your words are not commented on it is not a debate and when they are commented on it turns into a debate that you do not want to be dragged into.
It reminds me of the policeman who caught two people fighting in the street and one of them told him "it all started with him giving me back".
to love
All your attempts not to be dragged into an analysis about the nature of scientists does not help.
Maybe you should throw up your hands and admit that there is dark mass.
Save yourself a lot of trouble
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to love
Be careful, you are approaching the point of no return in the Ehud-Yaden relationship.
Be strong and courageous!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
And one more thing I forgot to mention:
Bekenstein's quote is complete - unless any quote that does not include all the things said by this or that person during his life is partial.
incidentally:
Remember Milgrom's twin universes?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/twin-universes-2602107/
This is also a dark matter theory.
sympathetic:
So again you didn't say who you think are the more serious scientists and who among them doesn't accept the dark matter hypothesis.
The dark matter theory has many observational confirmations and many of them have already been presented in this discussion and the previous ones.
For some reason - when it comes to dark matter which by definition does not interact with light - you probably require observational confirmation that will see the dark matter in the light.
There won't be one (and if there is, the theory will be disproved and not restored).
After all, for almost nothing else you don't require such an observation (and I already told you this, but this whole discussion is an insult - including Yehuda's applause). Have you seen an electron? No! You just saw many phenomena that the existence of the electron can explain. Have you seen a neutrino? not the same! Have you seen dark matter? No - so what? He also explains many observed phenomena.
Indeed - the author of the article I voted on was right when he said:
If these pictures don't convince you that dark matter exists, I don't know what will
I also do not believe that there is a way to convince you about this (and of course - not Yehuda either, even though he has a dark matter theory that has been disproved and he continues to believe in it anyway).
Beckenstein continues to engage in theory because he thinks there might be something to it.
I also think there could be something in it.
As you noticed yourself - this does not belong to the discussion because the discussion deals with the dark matter - whether or not there is such a matter.
Beckenstein believes that there is and cannot be otherwise.
He just believes - for some reason - that there can be a bully material that cannot be seen. It is no less spooky and it is in contradiction to the observation of the slingshot cluster (because there - most of the masses of the clusters managed to pass through each other without any interaction - but why repeat things - nothing will convince).
As part of the vigorous resistance to dark matter - you also demand from it a uniform distribution even though nothing in the universe is uniformly distributed at the point level and the (assumed) uniformity is only over very large units of space.
Normal matter is not uniformly distributed and radiation is not uniformly distributed either, whereas if everything were uniformly distributed there would be nothing interesting in the universe - including not humans.
to love
I liked your comment. In my opinion it must be before the eyes of everyone who studies or teaches about dark mass and energy.
Align power
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael
I wrote that I am not interested in debating who are good scientists and who are not. Such an argument seems childish to me, but since you are dragging me into this, I am saying that I am talking about words...
The fact that a person writes a book that is understood by a limited number of people does show that this is a genius, but not enough genius to be an expert in all fields in the world. Roger Penrose is indeed a genius mathematician and has contributed a lot to our understanding of the universe, but as far as I know he is not currently an active researcher in the field of astrophysics and cosmology. As a side note, in my opinion he has a far-fetched theory linking consciousness to quantum theory so that geniuses are not without mistakes either. Stephen Hawking is indeed a respected scientist and he won the Wolf Prize together with Roger Penrose, but in recent years his research and opinions have not been greatly appreciated. As a rule, the sources of information you usually rely on are Wikipedia and popular science books, these sources give a not bad description of the scientific research but also a distorted description. I would recommend you (as you did in the case of Bekenstein) to supplement the information by talking to scientists involved in the field. Regarding Steven Weinberg, winner of the Nobel Prize in the field of particles, this is one of the greatest scientists of the XNUMXth century, but again it is not clear to me how up-to-date he is. Of course, I don't claim to be more informed than them, but I do see Bekenstein as a scientist whose opinion is as important as theirs, if not more so.
Regarding the assessment of scientists in general, you can rely on their biography and the awards they won as a measure as you did, but it is generally better to look at the number of their publications in the field and the number of citations they receive. This method is also not optimal, but in my opinion it has more relevance. In the bottom line, Bekenstein's opinion on the subject (personal preference) is more acceptable to me. I don't intend to try to get into Bekenstein's mind or try to understand from his partial quotes what his opinion is, but the fact that he continues to work on TEVeS despite the findings of the Sling cluster does indicate to me that he thinks there is truth in this theory.
Since we are diverging in different directions in this discussion, I will try to return to the main topic.
The basic question we are discussing is what is the status of the dark matter theory. I will summarize my argument:
1. The dark matter theory has not yet been confirmed observationally or experimentally.
2. This is a theory capable of explaining all the observations discovered so far (perhaps the only one capable) but it has no theoretical predictions other than the discovery of dark matter which has not yet been discovered.
In my opinion, the conclusions arising from the above claims are that the dark matter theory is not a well-founded theory, there is room and it is important to doubt it. The fact that today we have a single theory capable of explaining past experiments does not make it correct. What's more, I find important scientists (in addition to Yehuda) who doubt it.
Regarding your claims about dark matter, you claim that its distribution is not homogeneous. Why is it unevenly distributed? The basic assumption of cosmology is homogeneity and isotropy over the large scales. Why would dark matter be distributed differently? At the beginning of the universe or a few seconds later, its state was homogeneous and isotropic except for quantum fluctuations that we recognize today in the background radiation, what do you think caused the dark matter to be distributed inhomogenously? Galaxies and stars are indeed formed as a result of instabilities caused by a different density to the sound, which are a kind of nucleation centers, but the instability increases the density as a result of the matter's ability to lose kinetic energy, something you claim that dark matter has difficulty doing...
And of course NASA is not serious either:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
By the way, Ehud:
I decided to allow myself to quote an exact quote from Bekenstein's letter:
According to Milgrom all clusters of galaxies, not only the colliders, contain large amounts of baryonic matter which has not yet been seen. This is required to square MOND with the observations. But this need not be the mysterious dark matter which nobody has a clear idea of its nature.
This allows me to add Bekenstein, who you also agree is a great scientist, to the list of supporters of the existence of dark matter and claiming that things cannot actually be explained without it.
Indirectly - he also quotes Milgrom but in fact he expresses his personal opinion because in the conversation I had at the time with Milgrom he told me that although he does not rule out the possibility of the existence of dark matter, he hopes that MOND will completely eliminate it.
Milgrom probably thought like you - that if there is dark matter, there is no need for MOND at all, while Bekenstein thinks like the author of the article I linked to - that even if there is dark matter - there is still a point in finding out if there are good alternatives to general relativity for explaining gravitation.
sympathetic:
I made the comments about Bekenstein in response to Zvi's comments in response 29 (who mentioned his name for the first time in this discussion) and to your comments about MOND.
I pointed out in them the fact that what you call MOND is actually not MOND and also the fact that Bekenstein believes in the existence of dark matter.
Your words about Bekenstein are all true, but you are the one who wrote (response 137) the following: "Are you claiming that Prof. Bekenstein, winner of the Israel Prize and one of the best scientists we have in Israel, is not aware of the findings of the Sling Cluster?" Did you enlighten his eyes?”
These questions were asked sarcastically and represent your interpretation (I repeat: yours!) of the facts (I repeat: the facts!) that I mentioned.
I am not claiming that the interpretation is incorrect. In my opinion, he is partly true and partly not, but since I do not know what is going on in Bekenstein's mind, I tend to stick to the report of what he said and not interpret them beyond what is necessary.
That's why I asked you not to blame me for your interpretation.
When Beckenstein talked about the bully dark matter he wasn't talking about planets or anything like that.
Pay attention to what I wrote: "He himself admitted to me in conversations and correspondence that in his opinion dark matter is necessary to explain the phenomena. He just thought that the dark matter might be ordinary baryonic matter.”
In other words - he was talking about dark matter that is necessary to explain the observed astronomical phenomena - that is - dark matter that no variation of MOND is superfluous in his opinion.
In my opinion, I formulated myself clearly enough and I am surprised that things were interpreted differently.
Regarding my choice:
All three scientists I brought are great scientists and they are known as such.
Weinberg also won a Nobel Prize, but it's probably not that prestigious in your eyes.
I brought Hawking (Wolf Prize laureate, which is known to be nothing) because he is famous, but Penrose (Wolf Prize laureate too - and not because of his popular books) really also writes very serious books and even some of his popular books are like that.
I suggest you read his book The road to reality which is written in a review on Amazon that according to the reviewer all the people who can read the book cover to cover and understand everything can take a taxi together to Penrose's lecture.
Those who want to see how small Penrose is are welcome to read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_penrose
By the way - I'm interested to know who are the great scientists in your opinion and which of them, in your opinion, refutes the dark matter theory. It is very easy to belittle another's choice when you do not present your own choice.
You misinterpreted my words about the dark matter's inability to form clumps (which I already told you in previous debates as well).
Just because it can't form clumps doesn't mean that for one reason or another you won't find more of it in some areas and less in others.
The meaning of my words is that he will not group in certain areas by himself, but it should not be concluded from them that his division is uniform.
I also did not write that dark matter can lose energy in interaction with normal matter. On the contrary - I wrote that this is a substance whose interaction with normal matter is negligible.
What does happen (apparently) is that normal matter and dark matter tend to cluster together and this is because the normal matter can lose kinetic energy and therefore it concentrates, many times, in the area where there is more dark matter.
In general - I explained that the uneven distribution of dark matter is one of its most prominent advantages over MOND derivatives because only an uneven phenomenon can lead to different behaviors in galaxies with a similar distribution of visible matter and identical gravitational laws (I'm surprised that after saying this so many times you still ignore it ).
Michael
I didn't bring the story in Kenstein, you brought it. If you intend to claim that Beckenstein claims that dark matter cannot be avoided, but it can revive a bully and that he does not know how to explain the slingshot cluster, that's fine, but what does this mean?
First, it is clear to everyone that there is dark matter, for example planets do not emit light, they only reflect it. The claims underlying the dark matter theory are not that there is dark matter but:
1. Dark matter is most of the matter in the universe.
2. Dark matter consists of particles that are unknown to us (i.e. not baryonic matter) and have only a gravitational interaction between them.
The fact that Bekenstein believes that there is dark matter does not mean that he believes in the dark matter theory. In fact he continues to write about MOND or more precisely TeVeS.
Regarding the examples of good scientists, who believe in dark matter, that you brought, indeed you brought the scientists who write the best popular science, I do not believe that they are the best professionals today and I value Prof. Beckenstein more. Although your choice indicates the sources of your knowledge on the subject I will not argue with you who and who are good or better scientists.
Regarding the subject of dark matter you proved my claim, if dark matter cannot lose energy it cannot collapse and produce dark matter galaxies or stars.
Another point is if dark matter cannot lose kinetic energy but only through interaction with matter
"Normal" After all, we would expect to find a density higher than it only near "normal" matter. In the rest of the universe, it should be more or less uniform in density, so how do you explain Gravitational depletion using dark matter?
If dark matter does not lose energy, how did it initially receive it, what gives the dark matter particles their initial kinetic energy, or the formulation is a little different, dark matter is supposed to be a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium, what determines its temperature, i.e. its average kinetic energy?
Regarding response 146 - this is a problem with reading comprehension.
Regarding response 147 - I assume it is correct.
The science respondents thank Mr. M. for his success in overcoming the attempted fraud. How did I think that I would succeed?
And regarding motivations - everyone and their own motivation.
How I enjoy knowing!!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
M.
I had the feeling that what was done here was that the article defeated the Mond theory. But not that he presents conclusive proof by virtue of dark mass apart from the knowns.
Yehuda
At the end of the article there is also an explanation to the question "Why does the scientific press still accept articles about MOND?"
The existence of dark matter has been proven, in the author's opinion, beyond any reasonable doubt, but this does not mean that the gravity formulas we have are correct. After all, we can never be sure of the correctness of any formula and it is always possible that it can be improved.
In other words - the motivation for starting MOND no longer justifies the continuation, but another motivation - which will always exist - still justifies the continuation of the attempt to improve our description of reality.
Yehuda:
Your response 142 is nicely worded.
You just had to sign it with "Troll Lulu".
You are building response 143 on the assumption that people will not read the article from which it was taken.
For the sake of those people, I take the trouble to remove the sting from the attempted fraud and make it clear that the passage in question appears in the opening and is not intended to present the writer's insecurity, but rather the problem whose solution he presents.
The section that characterizes his level of confidence is written in the conclusion area and there he writes:
If these pictures don't convince you that dark matter exists, I don't know what will.
This is an excerpt from the reference of the link on 143. Notice how insecure the author of the article feels there. What a great dilemma he finds in deciding on the dark mass. Just so you can see that many are troubled by the conclusions that should be drawn from gravitation.
A prerequisite to understanding the dark sector is to make sure we are on the right track. Can we be sure that we haven't been fooled into believing in dark matter and dark energy? After all, we only infer their existence from detecting their gravitational fields; stronger-than-expected gravity in galaxies and clusters leads us to posit dark matter, while the acceleration of the universe (and the overall geometry of space) leads us to posit dark energy. Could it perhaps be that gravity is modified on the enormous distance scales characteristic of these phenomena? Einstein's general theory of relativity does a great job of accounting for the behavior of gravity in the Solar System and astrophysical systems like the binary pulsar, but might it be breaking down over larger distances?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Would it be true to say that no scientist has yet received a Nobel Prize in connection with dark matter?, dark energy?, voodoo?, Terl-Lulu?
I wonder why they do it there at the Nobel Prize, when there are so many scientists, many scientists who believe in dark matter?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Those interested in the subject are welcome to read here:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/08/21/dark-matter-exists/
By the way, Ehud:
You wrote "It is not clear to me what stops the collapse of gravitational material on itself and the creation of black holes."
I'm not sure I understand what bothers you about this sentence, but it's clear that matter that does not maintain non-gravitational interactions with the environment can only lose kinetic energy through gravitational waves, which are probably a very inefficient way to lose energy.
Therefore it is quite clear that dark matter will not collapse and turn into black holes just like that.
It could be swallowed by an existing black hole and it could be included in primordial black holes, but for it to create a black hole itself, it probably takes much longer than the lifetime of the universe.
sympathetic:
I am not claiming anything except for the explicit things I said:
1. Beckenstein believes that dark matter of some kind is a reality but he says that it could be ordinary rogue matter
2. When I pointed out to him the Slingshot cluster which is accepted by most of the scientific community as very strong evidence that dark matter does not interact much with normal matter or between it and Bion itself and I asked him if he interprets the findings in a different way - he did not answer.
I didn't say he wasn't aware of something, but he clearly had nothing to answer the question.
Interpret things as you wish, but please - if you draw any conclusion from the facts (and they are facts!) - don't try to blame me for your conclusion.
Regarding the scientists versus the best scientists:
I don't know which authorized body you see as determining who the best scientists are, so there are no statistics of the kind you are asking for.
On the other hand - since the belief in the existence of dark matter is almost wall to wall - it can be concluded that most of the best scientists also believe in the existence of dark matter.
Among them you will of course also find Stephen Hawking:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html
Roger Penrose:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/66525/title/Cosmic_rebirth
Steven Weinberg:
http://communications.williams.edu/news/steven-weinberg/
And many others.
You say that dark matter should not be treated with "such a holy fear" and I ask you what kind of holy fear you are talking about.
The only one who makes claims that all the reasons for them belong to the realm of holy fear is... well... not me.
It is also not clear to me why it is important to you that the reading public understand something different about the dark matter theory than what the scientists understand about it.
R.H.
I am far from being an expert in the field, but in my opinion, stars and galaxies were not created from dark matter only and it is not clear to me that there can be a reservoir of dark matter only. The stars that we see in the sky are the result of a stationary state created by two opposing forces: gravitational collapse and nuclear reactions that cause heating and create pressure that opposes the collapse. As a result of the nuclear reactions, photons are created, that is, the light that reaches us from the stars.
It is not clear to me what stops the collapse of gravitational material on itself and the creation of black holes.
Michael
I'm glad you directed me to your 101 response because I did not understand it. Are you claiming that Prof. Bekenstein, winner of the Israel Prize and one of the best scientists we have in Israel, is unaware of the findings of the Sling Cluster? Did you enlighten his eyes? How does a respected scientist deal with such a contradiction why does he continue to test in TeVeS?
You claim that most scientists support the dark theory but science is not a democracy so we should ask the best scientists what they think?
In short, science is not black and white. There are many predictions and observations that have been proven wrong, which is why MOND continues to appear in the most respected scientific journals. The dark matter has not yet been discovered, so there is no point in treating it with such holy anxiety. This is a theory that is not consistent with scientific knowledge and experimentally confirmed theories and it is important that the reading public understands this.
Yehuda
Your response is debunked, everyone is wrong, only you know the truth by a trivial analysis that has nothing to do with science. Science comes from insights not from playing with different variables to fit the experiment. The model is at the center of the gauge, it is not intended to fit all experiments, it is intended to give a picture of the world and only then comes its test against experiments.
If Einstein were alive today, maybe we would be better off...
Still no one has any idea what exactly is happening in the universe (certainly not the readers of science, without disrespecting anyone), it is a very interesting topic, to know the truth we will have to wait a long time (and maybe even a very long time).
Save your strength for other arguments, it won't really help anyone to argue about their gut feelings.
good day everybody.
Good night
And you will continue to complain that no one takes your words seriously
Keep multiplying the results of my gravity calculations ten times a hundred or a thousand times and say that everything is fine
sympathetic:
Do you even read the answers to the questions you ask?
Why are you asking them again?
I already answered your question in response 127 in response 101.
R.H.:
Where is the confidence that there is confidence?
There is no certainty in anything - there is only a high probability.
The dark matter that is apparently found in very large quantities is not visible at any wavelength, so it is logical to think that it does not interact with electromagnetic radiation.
It does not collide with the baryonic matter and there are many evidences of this, one of which is the slingshot cluster where two galaxy clusters collide and although their normal matter is in a violent collision and creates many new stars - their centers of gravity have already passed through each other (through the dark matter of the other and through the normal matter of the other).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster
As you will see there (and Ehud is also welcome to read) - the slingshot cluster is also considered a refutation of MOND.
Yehuda:
There is no refutation of the gravity of the theory of relativity and all your attempts to discredit it are simply pitiful.
Even if you say a thousand times that she was refuted - nothing will happen to her.
Ghosts:
You are speaking way beyond your horizon of knowledge.
R. H
In one of the first lines you said:
But the problem is that dark energy does not radiate or hardly radiates.
My conclusion is that dark energy is actually a black hole. End quote.
In your opinion, anything that doesn't radiate is a black hole?, when I turn off the light in the bathroom, does it turn into a black hole??
This is absolutely not true
I did not continue reading
good evening
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Yehuda
The option I see is this (and it's really concise so I might not be consistent in my words, sorry):
Dark energy covers about 3/4 of the universe. That is, the area over which it extends is huge.
Second, its radiation intensity must be distributed over the entire area it covers.
But the problem is that dark energy does not radiate or hardly radiates.
My conclusion is that dark energy is actually a black hole.
That is, the universe itself is finite and defined by the boundary that begins at the event horizon, of the black hole, and ends when the radiation intensity of that black hole is equal to 0.
Because in the event horizon of the black hole the energy is infinite, this indicates that the total energy that makes up the black hole is greater than the total energy that is made up of all the matter (normal and dark) that is in its vicinity.
If this is the case then the singular point has an effect on all the matter that exists around it, and therefore the matter is the one that in terms of 'time' (I will explain shortly) moves towards the singular point, or in other words - all the matter moves towards the singular point while the mass of the matter decreases and becomes for energy
From the point of view of 'time':
The value is positive (from our point of view) and the value increases as you get closer to the NS (singular point 🙂 ).
Beyond the horizon of events - time has a negative value, and the value is smaller as the energy approaches the center, decreases, and becomes mass. That is, from the point of view of someone who is beyond the event horizon and he is approaching the event horizon that we are passing through, he will be able to see a process of mass formation, while this is exactly what will happen from his other side, that is, from our side. That is, we can also see the beginning of mass formation in the universe, but in practice what happens is that the two masses (from both sides of the event horizon) approach a singular point and their weight decreases.
In other words, all the matter in the universe is inside a black hole and all that matter is converging towards the event horizon of that black hole. Once all the mass is converted to energy, at the singular point, time will equal zero.
From that moment on, in this universe (ours) mass will have a value that is zero, time - a negative value and energy - a value that is infinite.
While beyond the event horizon the result will be different: time will have a positive value, energy will have a variable with a finite number of values, and mass will have a positive variable.
I can go into more detail and give my opinion on dark matter as well, but of course the whole thing is not really scientific. Very simply this is my opinion and this is how I see things at the moment, regardless of whether it corresponds to reality as it is perceived by people who are really dealing with the subject.
sympathetic
Mond failed several years ago and still continues to appear
But this should not surprise you because there is a theory that failed eighty years ago and still continues to appear
It is called gravitation in galaxies
The reason is that simply the one who has to decide to throw out the theory is the one who benefits from it - who teaches about it and researches it and receives a lot of budgets for Sarn and Higgs and black holes and wormholes and more.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
Where is the assurance that:
A. That dark matter does not interact with visible matter? After all, at least in terms of gravity, it does have an effect, and if it simply isn't in our area, then we won't be able to detect it in an accelerator or in other ways (like the neutrino was detected, for example), because it isn't here and until we travel "there" it won't be possible.
B. that he doesn't interact with himself? Maybe there are "stars" and "galaxies" made of dark matter but we don't see them? Evidence of this in my understanding is the gravitational dimming in regions without visible matter that indicate a considerable amount of mass.
Judah and Michael
If indeed MOND as a theory has been disproved, why continue to publish articles about it in all the prestigious newspapers and find more evidence of its success? Haven't the scientists heard that MOND has been disproved?
Science in the making is not black and white, it is not about mathematics but about the development of ideas.
R.H.
I will try to reply to you tomorrow, although as you may have already noticed I am far from your master in the dark matter theory.
R.H.:
Indeed the distribution of the dark matter is not uniform.
There are galaxies like M94 where it is not found at all (or is found in small amounts) and there are galaxies where its percentages are up to a thousand times higher than the baryonic matter.
It is even hypothesized that there are entire galaxies composed almost exclusively of dark matter!
The uneven distribution is, as I explained before, an important advantage of dark matter over a change in the laws of gravity because a change in the laws of gravity should act everywhere in the same way and because there are cases in which galaxies that look similar behave differently (to the point of complete agreement - in the case of M94 - with the laws gravitation as formulated in the theory of relativity - without any change) it is unlikely that the solution will come from a change in the laws of gravitation.
According to the properties attributed to dark matter - it has almost no interaction with normal matter or with electromagnetic radiation.
This means that a "creature" made of dark matter will hardly be able to distinguish normal matter (among other things - due to the lack of interaction with light, it cannot see the radiation we see).
It will be able to distinguish ordinary matter through its gravitational influence.
By the way - since the dark matter apparently does not maintain any non-gravitational interaction with itself - it is probably not possible for a "creature" made of dark matter to form because even a "lump" of dark matter cannot be formed.
Also - even if he was created - he had no possibility to distinguish other "creatures" like him.
Zvi and Ehud,
Assuming dark matter exists. The claim is that the same galaxy (M94?) is missing it. That is, if it exists, its distribution is not uniform. Is it possible that he simply does not exist in our districts and that is why we cannot find him?
In other words, if we imagine a production that does not see the "normal" material but only indirectly. What will the space look like to him? He will be able to understand that in certain places the matter exists (galaxies) and in other places it does not exist (the bingalactic space), but if by chance he is in the bingalactic space, he will not be able to identify the matter (molecules or atoms).
My last comment
sympathetic
A. As for the website, I haven't forgotten about it. I mentioned that no recent examples jump out at me and in my opinion talking about the site as a recent idea that failed is not true.
B. I agree with you that the "Mond" is a more basic theory, but that's precisely why I wouldn't be in a hurry to adopt it before all possible choices that don't turn physics upside down are exhausted. In my opinion, adding a natural constant is not a sign of the advantage of a theory, but its disadvantage.
In any case, I think there's no point in guessing - we'll live and see
And by the way the problem I see is not dark matter which I think is a possible solution and not the problem
herself!
The problem as I have defined many times is an inequality between two formulas that should be equal and are not. What could be the reason for this? Like I said = twenty options!
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
For ghosts
I would love to see your options.
My options:-
Option to correct the letters in the formulas - 5
The possibility of correcting the formulas for example Mund-2
The possibility of replacing one of the forces with another force - 8
Miraculous powers (such as a parallel universe, etc.) - 5
SA - 20 options.
I would love to see you find me more strength. I will happily mention you in the book I am about to publish
Good Morning
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
So in my opinion, what you are suggesting, has nothing to do with dark matter at all.
In my opinion and according to my conclusions, dark matter is a completely different league.
And in my opinion, there are more than twenty possibilities. For example, I also have conclusions about dark matter and how to solve the inequality.
And I (just like you) do not have the specific knowledge required to know if my conclusions are really correct (at least for me they are correct).
That's why I (unlike you) refrain from publishing my uneducated opinions on the subject.
to R.H. ghosts
I'm not expressing my opinion. I draw conclusions. There are twenty possibilities to solve the inequality, and if 18 are discarded (including Hammond because of M94) then two remain, what is to be understood here?
It's not fair to say it's an unfounded or stupid argument!, what's stupid about elimination?, we use it all the time!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
First of all, the scientists who deal with the subject really do not consider whether you will like the solution.
Second, due to the limitations of technology, it is not possible to make an accurate measurement of dark matter.
Moreover, we do not yet know what dark matter is. And we don't know what it consists of.
Therefore, building the appropriate instruments to detect the particle that makes up the dark matter is a huge difficulty in our time.
Therefore, the discovery of dark matter in the near future is not expected.
On the other hand, to claim that dark matter does not exist (or something else of the same style) is an unfounded argument at best,
Or, a silly argument at worst.
Regarding MOND
Indeed, it doesn't have much to do with dark matter.
It may confirm some predictions, but as I got the impression, none of the predictions have anything to do with dark matter.
R. H. Ghosts
The whole explanation you explained has been clear to me for a long time. But I don't like the statement of always downloading 90 percent because sometimes there shouldn't be dark material so why download anything?, and sometimes there is a lot of dark material so you have to download 99,99 percent of the material. But if we refer to the dark matter then what does Mund have to do here
Many things are not clear to me here
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
The decision that only ten percent of the mass is baryonic is not a casual decision.
Obviously the scientists who took this into account knew what they were calculating.
The assumption that only four percent of the mass in the universe is baryonic mass indicates that most of the universe is composed of unknown matter.
On the other hand, this unknown material is indeed known today. Today it is called dark matter and dark energy.
That is, it is not impossible that if most of the universe consists of dark matter and dark energy, then the galaxies will also be surrounded by dark matter and dark energy.
That is, when observations reveal that a ray of light bends in space while nothing disturbs it, it is assumed that this is caused by some mass. Since no mass is observed in the medium it is assumed to be 'dark'.
On the other hand, the measurements show that there is a lack of mass.
If the mass is missing in the measurements, this is a sign that something really exists in space, the problem is that this thing is not found in space! What we do find is that a light beam bends in space, but there is no indication of any mass in the medium that would bend it.
According to you, it is assumed that the missing mass in the measurements is actually the embodiment of gravitational dusting.
But with such a solution you will not be able to solve the problem, so what does this claim actually mean?
If the gravitational pull is caused by 'dark' mass, then, the dark mass is the missing equation in the measurements.
That is, the dark mass requires equations in any case, but it is not known what that mass is, what it is made of, and therefore it is impossible to measure it.
Hence the 'equation' remains unsolvable (but with a figure that takes into account dark mass).
Hence, if there is a galaxy whose mass (which consists of baryonic matter) and its luminosity are measured and it is concluded that a certain amount of mass is missing, then it is assumed that the amount of mass belongs to some substance that is not included in the normal matter (some say that it is indeed baryonic matter but of a special kind ).
Apart from that, in my opinion, the Tully Fisher relation is altogether 'accurate in measurements' and does not disprove or solve the dark matter problem.
It seems that I got confused reading the Wikipedia entry because I just read that the ratio holds in spiral galaxies and does not hold in elliptical galaxies.
The argument remains of course the same argument, only the word "spirals" should be replaced by "ellipses"
In addition to this, since M94 behaves according to Newton (and therefore disproves MOND anyway), it is probably an example that even in spiral galaxies the relation does not always hold.
I sometimes agree with M*K*L
good evening
Yehuda Sabdarmish
sympathetic:
I am surprised that you see in relation to Tali Fischer a confirmation of MOND
After all, if the Tally-Fisher relation was predicted by MOND and does not exist in spiral galaxies, all it gives is another refutation of MOND.
deer,
First about prophecies that didn't come true, I'm surprised you forgot the site, this example comes up in particular when thinking about dark matter.
You are right about the fact that I am not involved in the field in question, but I am not sure that this disqualifies me from judging it. Sometimes people who work in a certain field are trapped in preconceived notions and do not see the shortcomings and it is also true that sometimes people outside the field are not aware of the difficulties and constraints that define the field.
Why do I still choose to confront the dark matter theory? As I wrote, scientific theories have a different basis, based on which they predicted and predicted results that later on are revealed experimentally. A theory that only explains all the observations and experiments that have been done so far is not well-founded in my opinion. While the dark matter theory has not yet predicted an observed phenomenon, the Tali Fischer relationship can be seen as a kind of MOND prediction that has come true. In this context, an article was recently published in (2011) 106,121303 PRL by S. MacGauh describing the adjustment
MOND for observations of gas-rich galaxies.
Second, MOND identifies a certain natural constant with physical unity a0. A scientific theory based on a physical constant is, in my opinion, more fundamental than theories that do not contain such a constant. For example, quantum theory is based on hbar, classical gravitation on G is the gravitation constant, while private equation is based on c the speed of light. The constant that plays a role in MOND has a cosmological significance, not just a galactic one.
So much for a comparison of MOND with dark matter. Regarding the dark matter theory separately and again I am speaking as an outside observer, it gives the impression that there is a fundamental problem with the theory of gravitation as it is formulated today.
Theoretically the Torah does not agree with the quantum theory, observationally more surprising observations are revealed which indicate that the theoretical understanding in the field is only partial. By this I am referring to observations about the speed of rotation of galaxies and the acceleration of the universe. It is indeed possible to explain the phenomena in retrospect by introducing dark matter and dark energy, but in retrospect it is always possible to create a theory to explain experiments. It was Richard Feynman who said that "the basic rule in science is not to deceive yourself, because that is the easiest thing to do". From my limited experiences in life, I know that it is very easy to create theories in retrospect (which are not always correct) and true understanding is only proven by those who know how to predict things and not explain them in retrospect.
Finally, a slightly different psychological explanation for my lack of faith and you are welcome to treat it with a laugh, it is probably based on the fact that I am an optimist. In physics, in the last few decades, there has not been enough of a scientific revolution to observe the recent Nobel Prizes that have been handed out. A scientific revolution occurs simultaneously with new technology that enables experiments or observations that were previously impossible. According to all the signs that seem to me, the theory of gravitation is facing a scientific revolution. The first step in such a revolution is the denial of the attempt to explain phenomena with the help of previous knowledge, this is the situation today. The next step is a phenomenological explanation using a constant for example Planck's constant and after that comes the better understanding see special relativity or quantum theory.
deer
What you say that they searched for 70 years but fifty of them did not search is correct so you agree that they searched for 70 years
And by the way, we've been searching since the beginning of the thirties, so it's eighty years
Ben Ladan was searched for ten years and really no one cares that nine of them were not searched correctly,
And regarding the rest of your words
I am afraid that there are no relevant ranges for the dark matter so that scanning such ranges will not be useful
It seems to me that the ranges are at least as flexible as the dark matter and energy which can be as much as needed and where needed
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic,
I don't quite understand why you are so strongly opposed to dark matter and at the same time associate yourself with factors and claims that you wouldn't normally associate with.
You claim, for example, that they have been looking for dark matter for 70 years and you know very well that this is cheap manipulation. Until about 20 years ago, they still thought that the dark mass was concentrated in brown dwarfs whose brightness is too low to allow us to witness them (today it is possible, then they really couldn't). The search for dark matter of the type in question is nowhere so new.
The claim as if "guessing an arbitrary distribution of dark matter" is also completely incorrect. One guesses a halo with a decreasing density like 2-^r which is the most natural guess one can guess and it appears in many other cases in astrophysics of things controlled by gravity.
at all,
Scientific history is full of things that were predicted before they could be located (as well as incorrect constructions - although I don't remember recent examples), starting with neutrinos, quarks and antimatter and ending with gravitational waves. Here you have an example of something that has nice theoretical predictions about it that follow both from the field of particles (including, according to this article, calculations of the amount to be expected that matches the findings) and that match what is seen in the observations.
The argument that "they have been searching for 70 years" is simply irrelevant - this is not a budgetary question but a scientific one - either there is dark matter or not and our observation will not change anything!
As soon as the detectors cover the relevant ranges and do not detect, then there will be something to talk about as a "failure to detect dark matter" (hereinafter "refutation").
I don't know if there is dark matter.
I've never worked directly on the subject and I don't understand enough to say that it doesn't seem right to me - I don't think you do either.
Right now, this seems like the better theory.
It predicts the formation of galaxies very well, is suitable for observations and fits well with predictions that arise from particles.
It may be that MOND, TEVES and the like are the right ones, but now most of those involved in the field believe that this is not the case.
I think that as readers of science and people who are not involved in the field, we must avoid stretching criticisms and getting into seemingly scientific debates on subjects that we do not understand a thing and a half about.
Used to measure the distance to a spiral galaxy:
Measure the red and blue shifts of the rotation curve
Calculate the speed of the stars orbiting the center of the galaxy
Calculate the gravitational force acting on the stars
Take a 10th of the mass because 90% of the mass of the galaxy is made of dark matter
Find the luminosity and combine it with the apparent magnitude to finally get the distance.
I took part of the article and saw that there is a lot of uncertainty in the figure just from the casual decision that only ten percent of the mass is bullion and from this we draw conclusions about the distance of the galaxy, after all there are galaxies with all kinds of percentages of dark mass.
I didn't understand the connection and I will need a close explanation from someone
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
Regarding response 103:
Nothing I do will make your theories far-fetched or correct, including repeating (which you force me to do when you repeat and bring them up dozens of times) for pointing out the fact that they are far-fetched.
What makes the theories unfounded are the theories themselves and in the past I have already pointed out the flaws in them and as mentioned I am already tired of repeating it.
Yehuda:
Attitude Tali Fisher
sympathetic:
You are not pointing out flaws in the theory but your personal feelings in relation to known facts about it.
As we know, in astronomy it is difficult to conduct experiments and one has to make do with observations.
There are, of course, many possible observations to disprove the theory, but I'm afraid that's not what you're referring to:
For example, the theory will be disproved if bodies are observed moving near an area that creates pollution without their trajectory being affected by it.
I assume that what you are looking for is a refutation that would disprove the dark mass hypothesis without changing the claim that the dust we are observing is a gravitational dust and in addition - one that would not disprove the known laws of gravity.
There is a problem with this because at the moment the dark mass is the only explanation that fits all the observed phenomena and therefore every scenario that I can think of also refutes some of the observations that have already been made.
Regarding the Tally Fisher relation, it is really interesting but I learned from Wikipedia that it does not apply in spiral galaxies (although it has alternatives there).
This is very logical because as I already mentioned, M94 disproves MOND and is indeed a spiral.
I apologize for the bad translation, you are welcome to read about the relationship called:
Tully-Fisher relation
Maybe someone can explain to me what the Tully-Fisher ratio is that they speak so highly of? And are there any uncertainties in the resulting calculations?
Yehuda
Yehuda,
In my opinion, the role of a scientific website is to present discoveries and theories to the general public. Discoveries and theories are objects that have undergone scientific criticism and not feelings, sensations and the like. Regarding the discussions going on around the news, in my opinion, they should also be conducted around facts. I do not intend to argue with you on the subject and I am not the only one who answered you in this way...
Michael,
Science advances by discussion and an important part of the discussion is finding flaws in the theories of what you call steam, but as mentioned, it is not the scientist's role to advance science but the public's understanding of what science is.
Let's turn for a moment to the question of the comparison between MOND and dark matter.
It is important that the reading public understands that a good scientific theory needs to have the ability to disprove it
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me exactly how the dark matter theory will be disproved (as Judah predicts) what is the prediction of
Dark matter apart from the trivial prediction that it will be discovered?
The situation is today that dark matter has not been discovered seventy years ago, if it is not discovered in the next twenty years, should we give up on the theory? What if in the next two hundred years he is not discovered?
The reading public also knows that a scientific theory brings together information accumulated through many experiments and/or observations in a coherent way, in a certain sense it explains them. Thus another requirement of a scientific theory is that it bind together information in a coherent and simple way. One of the amazing observational discoveries about a galaxy is the Talley-Fisher relation, this relation derives directly from MOND. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me how in a simple and clear way this relationship stems from dark matter?
Mikael
Even the fact that you constantly repeat the statement that I am responding to "comments that have already been answered and what was said in them has been refuted dozens of times" does not make my responses incorrect and unfounded.
I believe that within a year, two years the crazy joke of dark mass and energy will be over.
Let's wait and see!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to love
A scientific site is a site where scientific topics are raised. To come and set limits on what is allowed and what is not allowed is something that will not be done.
The article you're talking about talked about 75 percent, and I still thought it was bullshit. Everything was done just to say later I said first.
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
The site is supposed to be a scientific site and not Yehuda's blog.
Indeed - when it comes to a scientific theory that contradicts conventional knowledge - there is no possibility for the site to receive an article about it before it has been published in a scientific journal.
You can, of course, write any rubbish in the comments, but not in the articles.
The trolling is another matter.
When the same responses that have already been answered and what is said in them have been refuted dozens of times continue and are sent in the hope that those who respond to them will get tired = it is only legitimate that instead of starting again to list the mistakes in them - I will simply draw the attention of the readers to the fact that no recognized scientific publication is willing to accept what is said in them.
sympathetic:
Not true.
Science is not promoted by steam.
Besides - you yourself said that the science site was not intended to promote science but only to present it to the public so that even if the steams had a role in promoting science (and they don't) - there is no reason to go back and bring them up here at every opportunity.
I am not ruling out MOND.
I'm just pointing out that it contradicts findings tested in different observations (like M94 and like the slingshot cluster).
Of course you can argue that the observations are wrong but you have to understand that this is what needs to be done to get MOND.
By the way - like you, I used the name MOND even though the situation with MOND is much worse because of its disagreement with the theory of relativity. I assume you meant one of the improvements of MOND like the one Beckenstein did while adding many more entities (much more than the single entity of dark matter).
By the way - despite the fact that Bekenstein co-founded TeVes, he himself admitted to me in conversations and correspondence that in his opinion dark matter is necessary to explain the phenomena. He just thought that the dark matter might be ordinary baryonic matter.
It should be noted that this conclusion is also in contradiction to the findings of the Skavir Hekel and when I asked him to resolve this contradiction, he remained silent and did not reply.
Michael,
According to my understanding, science is not a platform to develop science in, but to present it to the public. The thing you call vapors is one of the ways in which science works. Scientific theories are examined, we try to find flaws in them, we discuss them to understand what they assume and what approximations are made in them. Science is not a package deal, it is based on careful examination. Exposure of the reading public to several opinions other than the dominant one increases their understanding of the subject. A discussion exposes the public to the basic assumptions and shortcomings of theories in this particular of dark matter that has not yet been predicted by any observation that has come to fruition. The steam is the type of discussion that expands the knowledge of the reading public and allows it to form an independent opinion.
Yehuda, the comment that "the science is not a platform to develop science in, but to present it to the public" concerns you in particular, there is no point in discussing speculations, feelings or personal inventions in science. The discussion should be matter-of-fact and based on facts as much as possible. If you have theories, for the thousand and one time post them but bring them up here in a discussion as this is not the stage for that.
Michael
More specifically about science. The level of information presented is not uniform, there is scientific information, there are speculations, and there are more or less established theories. A discussion of the basis of the theory allows the intelligent reader to understand how well it is based and what it relies on. For example, a few months ago an article was published on the topic "The dark matter particle was discovered with a probability of 50%" It was clearly not a scientific article but an advertising exercise... it was important to clarify this. The discovery of particles is reported with the probability of a number of standard deviations, not in single percentages, and unlike you and Yehuda, they do dismiss MOND outright, for example, but this is not the accepted opinion of scientists. Respectable scientific journals continue to accept articles on the theory and do not reject articles that are on the threshold, for example, recently an article was published in Physical Review Letters, a respectable physical journal by all accounts, that strengthens the MOND theory. The reading public has the right to hear not only the opinion of the majority.
I have pressure differences in my brain from this discussion...
Michael
You do not think you are exaggerating?
You require from those who raise ideas on the website here, that they first come with certificates that they have published on a well-known scientific website.? Science for example?, maybe National Geographic will be good enough or doesn't satisfy you?
I have no right to post comments here because I didn't post the material in a more important place?
How ridiculous
Get over it Michael.
And by the way. Question: Isn't it time you deleted your name from the list of forbidden words?
After all, everyone knows her
I hope I didn't write a forbidden word
Yehuda
Well, of course it's not just idle steam that bothers me, but also propaganda for unfounded theories.
to Nimrod
I will be back for the thousandth time
I checked mathematically all the possibilities for solutions, of the problem of the movement of the right and wrong spiral galaxies and I came up with twenty. I demonstrate - all the solutions!!
In the elimination method, I eliminated eighteen and only two options remain, of which one is correct
A. Dark mass and energy
B. pressure differences
As soon as I saw that the pressure differences exist in the universe it is better in my opinion
What the idea of pressure differences predicts, for example, is a galaxy whose parts will need a negative dark mass, for example M51 and additionally N891. Appears in Astronomy December 2010.
In addition, pressure differentials predict negative ventilation. That is, galaxies that are far away will also look as if they are centered in the middle. This cannot be explained by gravitation with or without dark mass. Possible with negative dark mass.
Do you want this creature?, remember who first offered!
Good night
And hopefully I didn't write a forbidden word
Sabdarmish Yehuda
sympathetic:
You're replying to something I didn't say.
I am not claiming that the public should not be exposed to this complexity.
I'm just asserting that it is precisely the claims that are not acceptable to the scientific community that are continually presented here - whether it is related to the article or not.
I also previously expressed my opinion that the objections raised here are divided into two types: one type is the type you also object to and is the type of putting forward unfounded theories that no scientific newspaper is willing to accept and the other type is...steams.
In the discussions on the subject that are reopened every time without any reason, no new argument has come up for many months.
I also did not see that anyone among the scoundrels here published their words on the subject in a scientific newspaper (and it is clear that if there is a disagreement between the scientists - not only the public should know about it but also the scientists).
I claim that curbing this pointless discussion is not an attempt to beautify reality but to prevent an attempt to humiliate it.
And I claim again:
I'm in favor of freedom of information, skepticism, and everything that really involves science.
All that bothers me are idle fumes.
I very much agree with Ehud, in science freedom of thought, and raising doubts is a very important thing, even if sometimes it is about going against conventions, science progresses because people raise doubts about many things.
On the other hand, such a strong opposition to the accepted opinion among most scientists has a low level of legitimacy when it does not have a sufficiently solid scientific basis under it.
Yehuda, I don't understand how you are so sure with such absolute certainty that the dark mass is fiction, I also cast some doubt on it. But to present such great determination on a subject that you do not know at all what its dynamics are (and all scientists do not understand the subject either) is a wrong step and does not represent a scientific way of thinking.
If you are so sure that the dark mass is fiction then you have to prove something that even scientists have not yet been able to prove - that there is no way that dark mass exists.
sympathetic
Well spoken!
And did not add
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Michael,
First, you underestimate the intelligence of the readers of the news on the site.
Secondly, I think it is important to make it clear to the public that science is a living and changing field, in which new things are discovered and theories change. It is also important to understand that the theoretical foundation of different models is different. Science is a human field in which mistakes are made, there are intrigues and fads, and all this does not detract from its value.
Your claim not to expose the public to this complexity, in my view, is analogous to the claim that it is better to prevent information from reaching the general public in a democratic regime, since it does not have the tools to understand. Political experience shows quite the opposite, political stability is obtained in open regimes in which no attempt is made to beautify reality. Therefore, in my opinion, the public should be exposed to a discussion about scientific questions, especially in the field of dark mass, which has not yet been discovered despite seventy years of searching for it.
sympathetic:
Science is indeed not a religion, but the public does not know enough to decide the dispute between scientists and turning to it in this matter (especially when no parallel effort is made with the scientific community) is pointless.
What do you expect will happen as a result of trying to convince the public with the claim that on a certain subject - most scientists are wrong?
In my opinion, nothing came out of this except creating ammunition for those who are looking for every opportunity to discredit science and scientists.
On the subject of criticism of scientific theories, I agree with Yehuda. There is no problem and even on the contrary there is a lot of point in discussing scientific theory in science, it only contributes to interested readers. Science is not a religion and it exists thanks to objective doubt.
The problems only begin when you try to come up with alternative (personal) theories that lack scientific foundation. In my opinion, science is not a platform for publishing personal theories.
Your words don't make me smile, but too bad.
Those who are able to understand have already understood.
Michael mainly, and my father Blizovsky
What happened?
Eleven days have passed since then. Response number 58. What did you suddenly remember?
There is no reason for you to address me with the words: "because of types like you"
And as for the dark mass, it did not start with science and will not end there. This is a difficult and serious problem of science for eighty years. There is no reason why we should not be updated with the news of this problem from time to time. I believe that a scientific website should not inhibit discussion of this difficult problem. But you are the boss.
And what allusions are there in response 62?, enough Michael, stop!
Shabbat Shalom
and smile (:))
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I did not answer in Zvi's name.
I just quoted his words.
How do you think I prevented him from answering you?
Did the one I quoted him suddenly hit his keyboard?
Or do you repeat this matter and make the false claim as if I am censoring someone.
Because of types like you who cannot remain in the relevant discussion and are forced to transfer it to personal lines, and because there are many types like you among the religious, there is an automatic delay in the system (and this has already been explained here before) of responses containing the word "Michael".
I'm sure you know that but that didn't stop you from trying to spread a lie by your insinuations in reply 62
We have already had the discussion about the dark mass here countless times and I have already exhaustively addressed all the claims made here.
It seems absolutely evil to me that instead of trying to convince the scientific community, people try to convince the readers of the science with their claims (which deny the position of the scientific community).
to love
Where did you find dust in my idea?, SA This is a phenomenon similar to Fata Morgana - Mirage in deserts or on a hot road where two figures are visible, the vehicle and its reflection.
But I must be deceiving myself, so stop talking nonsense and we will all continue to believe in the good and debilitating dark mass!
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Gravitational pollution, as its name suggests, is pollution caused by gravity, i.e. mass. In other words, I was talking about pollution caused by being burdened. Yes, there may also be small green people who divert the light from its path, but then it is not a matter of heavy pollution. Countless claims can be made, for example the lens is similar to a normal lens. First I will try to remind you how much work is required to produce a normal lens and there is no possibility that interstellar dust will produce a prism. Second, the refractive index of light through a lens is determined from the transmission coefficient in a material other than glass or dust. Third, interstellar dust scatters light that hits it, not focusing it. Elevating remains is an interesting field, but turning them into science is putting them under criticism and preferably experimentally. Thus Aristotle Archimedes Hipparchus and many others were not scientists. They made claims about reality but did not bother to test them. They believed that reason is above the illusion of reality. A philosophical concept far from science.
As noted by R.H. One of the most important tools in science is criticism by professionals or as Richard Feynman said "The first rule in science is not to deceive yourself". You must not fall for ideas that seem beautiful to you, you must check them carefully. Einstein also said "the most important tool of a theoretical physicist is the trash can." He who misleads himself and does not put his ideas to the test is not a scientist at best and a charlatan at worst.
Yehuda Svardamish,
We already had the above discussion once, but nothing seems to have changed.
Hidan is not a hostel for original scientific articles that are published for the first time since it does not have the usual saturation system. That's why the knowledge site reports on scientific publications in newspapers intended for this purpose.
If you have a new theory, be respectful, sit down, formulate it in the accepted language and send it to a newspaper in the field. I'm sure that Ehud or Zvi will be able to advise you on a suitable theoretical physical paper. The article will be reviewed by experts in the usual way.
If it is published then, I assume, the science website will be happy to report on it. At the moment, the situation where you are blowing theories over the top of the talkbacks is, to put it mildly, a bit pathetic.
If you are serious, take your science seriously too.
sympathetic
In your response to R.H. Rafa.im
you say:
1. Gravitational repulsion is caused by mass!
I think there is a mistake in this statement because you claim beforehand that the pollution you see in space is gravitational. But in Israel, space is seen as empty, it may have been created by gravity, but it may have been created by something else. To remind you, distortion is the bending of the light rays. This can happen because the light rays pass near a large mass, but it can happen from the light rays passing through layers of varying density. Just like a lens. Isn't that where the word Idush comes from!
Just because. You don't have to agree
We will see what new articles they have
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I do not accept that Aristotle Archimedes Hipparchus and many others were not scientists.
It is true that the multiplication of one of the formulas will bring the two formulas into comparison, but why decide that the multiplication will be done through the multiplication of the mass?, why not something else?, that's what I'm talking about. Double down, please, but check out all the options, and like I said there are many!
But you are convinced of the truth of Newton's formula in the whole universe so... all good, and we disagree
Apologies for my lack of knowledge
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
You are taking me back to a time when there were no scientists, therefore it is no wonder that scientists missed the problems in Aristotle's laws, they simply did not exist... In addition, I showed you how it is always possible to adjust two formulas that do not fit by defining a function that is the sum between them and multiplication on one side. This can also sometimes be done parametric. You don't do science by guessing functions The problems with gravitation are not just Newton's formula,
There are problems with general relativity and its compatibility with quantum theory. What is needed is a new physical understanding and not
An arbitrary mathematical game. When two formulas do not fit, at least one of them is probably incorrect, the underlying theory must be replaced and this is done through physical understanding.
Why am I attacking you for your lack of knowledge? Well, it is not enough to find a match between the two formulas. Science contains many details and requirements that must be met within a scientific theory, therefore not every mathematical change is possible. For example, one must maintain cosiness, it is forbidden to have negative entropy and more and more. It is convenient for an outsider to present theories and be amazed, but as a scientist one must know what the consequences of the theories are, does a new gravitation theory impair our knowledge of the evolution of the universe since the big bang. A new theory has to meet many criteria and adapt in many ways. Trying to coordinate things without understanding their implications is amateurish at best.
R.H. Rafa.im
You made one big salad…
1. My liver is caused by mass! Since there is heavy dusting in areas where the size of the effect cannot be explained by the observed mass, it is assumed that there is a dark mass.
2. The Talley-Fisher relation refers to something completely different, the rotation speed of galaxies and their luminosity. This is a phenomenological relation obtained through observations. This relation is directly explained by MOND.
The Talley-Fisher relation can be obtained by dark matter, but there is no a priori reason to assume that such a relation will be obtained. We can therefore see in this relation a MOND prediction that has been confirmed.
3. There is no connection between the Talley-Fisher relation and the cosmological constant except for the fact that both were obtained by observations.
4. The Talley-Fisher relation does not bridge gaps, it is simply an observational relation that was obtained and is not directly related to dark matter, although it can be tried to be explained by dark matter.
sympathetic
It may be that I did not understand the relationship Tali Fisher correctly, but I will try to ask you anyway and I hope you will forgive me for the somewhat confused writing:
From what I understand, to the question: What causes gravity deflation? The answer is 'dark matter'.
From what I understood from your words, dark matter is not needed to solve the problem of the missing mass in the measurements. and that the Talley-Fisher relation bridges the gaps.
According to what I understood from all this, the Tali Fischer relation is actually similar to the cosmological constant from the point of view of: it must exist.
That is, the very fact that the Tali Fisher relation bridges the gaps of the missing mass in the measurements, it embodies the role of dark matter, and in this way it actually requires the existence of dark matter, and hence again the question of what dark matter is. Do you agree with this claim?
to love
For over fifteen hundred years, Aristotle's laws of free fall were accepted, saying that a heavier body moves faster in free fall. It never occurred to anyone to take two bodies and see if it is true - until the days of Galileo. Why? How is it that scientists missed such a point for nearly two thousand years???? The truth?, I don't know, but they missed it!
Instead of attacking me for my lack of knowledge and the fact that I'm underestimating and that I must also be wrong, etc., etc., maybe it would be useful to look and see what I'm saying?, Am I really the only one who sees that this is about two formulas that are supposed to be equal and are not??, gravitation does not belong to the initial analysis, it can Being a recipe for baking bread:- Why did I get ten loaves of bread instead of one, what did I do wrong? In the amount of flour?, in the amount of baking powder?, baking time?, maybe I was wrong in the recipe itself? It is convenient for people to think that there is no gravity, so we add mass!, we don't find it?, no big deal, in a hundred years we will find it!, why exactly add mass?, if we were to add to the gravitational constant by the same percentage, wouldn't we increase gravity?. And maybe we will reduce the acceleration like Milgrom did? There can be many options - twenty.
Everyone sees the problem as a high physics problem and I assure you that if it was one I would not touch it. But damn it's a simple mathematical problem - a logic problem - why are two formulas that are supposed to be equal not equal?!!. Play with it Ehud maybe you will find other solutions?
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Science is not performed by pure mathematics. Mathematics is a tool not the essence. If you find the problem mathematically simple how is it that hundreds of scientists have missed this point? If you claim to have a theory, try to publish it, this is the scientific way.
It is not easy to match two "formulas that should be equal" as you call it. You simply multiply one of the equations by a function that is the ratio between them and get a match again, sometimes you can define a single parameter so that the equations match for example special relativity and Newton's equations. Special relativity did not grow out of the attempt to adapt to Newtonian physics, it grew out of Einstein's physical thinking on the question of what does it mean that the speed of light is constant in any frame of reference? Note a non-mathematical physical thought. Mathematics came later and to be honest it was already discovered by Lorentz, despite this the theory of relativity is associated with Einstein.
R.H. Refai.M
First thanks, you write "You claim that MOND is correct. On the other hand, from the words of those who understand the matter, I was convinced that MOND is not correct." From your words it can be understood that I do not understand the subject...
I do not claim to be an expert on the subject.
Second, you didn't read my words, I'm not saying that MOND is correct, I'm saying
that MOND is a step in the right direction.
Tally-Fisher is an empirical result that links the luminosity in spiral galaxies (proportional to their mass) and the rotation speed of distant objects around the center of the galaxy. This phenomenological relation is obtained directly from MOND, one can even say that MOND predicted it. Therefore, MOND is a theory with predictions, one of which is found in the observation. On the other hand, what are the predictions of dark matter? The only prediction is that he will find. Has he been found yet? Should we believe in a theory that no prediction of which has yet been found to be correct? This should not be dismissed outright, there are those who believe in string theory even though it too has not yet predicted a phenomenon found in an experiment. In conclusion, I see MOND as a step on the way to a more correct theory of gravitation.
sympathetic
Hello. I read your comments here and wanted to ask you:
You claim that MOND is correct. On the other hand, from the words of those who understand the matter, I was convinced that MOND is not correct.
I would appreciate it if you could elaborate more on the Tali Fisher ratio and explain why you think MOND is actually correct?
Thanks and happy holiday.
Education and not failure (:))
to love
We apparently don't agree on anything, not even how to handle our data
It is true that I lack a serious failure in science, but that does not belong because the problem here is a mathematical problem and even a simple one: what is the reason that two formulas that are supposed to be equal, are not equal?
Therefore, in this case, mathematical analysis of formulas that do not work is actually, in my opinion, a method to produce a new science. As soon as we understand why they don't work, we will know how to move forward.
I will not expand, I have already expanded enough
Good day Ehud
In appreciation
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
The approach you took is not scientific. This is not how you create a new science. The sanctity in science is in the model described through mathematical equations and not in mathematics which is the language of description. First, a reason is proposed that tries to explain the observed phenomena and then this claim is formulated mathematically. Mathematical analysis of equations is not a way to produce a new science.
Regarding your pressure theory without knowing it, I believe that the pretense of producing a scientific theory without basic knowledge is pretentious to the point of absurdity. If you have a theory please try to publish it in a reputable newspaper. I don't know of a case where a person with no education in science managed to produce a theory from time to time (except maybe Ramanujan who did it in mathematics). Scientists are not a collection of sheep following the accepted theory, scientific thinking is characterized by the attempt to doubt existing knowledge. Many scientists advocate dark matter not out of innocence but out of an informed thought and so do the opponents of this theory. You have to be very pretentious to come and claim that you have a theory that everyone missed...
to love
My response 72 to you is awaiting approval by the "authorized institutions" so let's wait patiently
(:))
Sabdarmish Yehuda
to love
Your response is food for thought
I have to better understand the relationship between Tally-Fisher and Mund and see how it fits with my idea of pressure difference.
Which I can say in general about the other things in your response
The approach I took, of analyzing the reasons why the two formulas are not equal - (the gravitation to the centrifugal force in the spiral galaxies) is actually a mathematical analysis, that is: - what is the reason that the two formulas are not equal, even though they are supposed to be equal. It doesn't have to be about gravity it can be about a million and one other things. So what you write about the laws of physics may not necessarily apply to mathematics.
In addition, it is difficult for me to part with all the old methods in developing theories (the romantic ones) and I still think they have great value and in my opinion even value is better than any new method
Thanks for the informative response
Happy holiday
And in appreciation!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Your concept of science is an idealistic romantic concept. Suitable for observations - possible theory, not suitable for observations - theory rejected. Science doesn't work that way, especially not near scientific revolutions. I gave you as an example Bohr's model of the atom for which he received the Nobel Prize, a model that did not know how to explain all the experiments at the time and turned out to be a wrong model. I will give you another theoretical example, today it is clear that general relativity and quantum theory are irreconcilable, is that why we stop using these theories?
Regarding MOND, its strength is that it defines a constant with physical units a0 which, like Planck's constant at the time, allows describing a great many observations in a simple way. In addition, MOND is not like you write "OK with Tally Fisher" but it explains Tally-Fisher. The Talley-Fisher relation is a very mysterious phenomenological dependence and other dark mass models will have difficulty accepting this relation. These two facts indicate that MOND
It is a step in the right direction. It is still not the final theory because it still has problems with some of the observations, but it points to a direction in which to investigate. In times before scientific revolutions, theories are put forward (Bohr's model of the atom for example) that are not correct in the regressive sense but indicate what the important directions of research are.
The story of science as it is told in the textbooks fits your perception a logical series of attempts to match theories to actual experiments and observations science does not work this way. There are many kind hearts that help him move forward and then are abandoned because they are not entirely correct in the analogy they are like steps on a ladder that allow one to rise from one floor to another when at the end of the transition the ladder is thrown away.
to love
I agree with some of your words, for example I am sure that if someone had come in Newton's time and told the wonders of the theory of relativity, no one would have accepted it. It is true that both Newton and the theory of relativity would have given correct results, but Newton was better then according to Occam's razor
On the other hand, in my humble opinion, M94 demolishes the MOND theory and it will not help here that MOND is fine with Tali Fischer
And regarding what you said about theories, I know in advance that a theory should explain the things we know today and not the new things that will be known to us tomorrow (if tomorrow it fits, then great, and if not, then we will fix it or replace it). That is, the theory is not supposed to be a prophet.
But if from the beginning the theory contradicts some of the things we know today then we have a problem with it!
Shabbat Shalom
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Yehuda,
There is no theoretical possibility to assess what an alternative theory is suitable for experiments, see examples from the past. Was it possible to predict the theory of relativity according to the Michelson-Morley experiment? Was it possible to predict the structure of the quantum theory from the incompatibility of the theory with the experiments that measured the radiation emitted by a black body? The attempt to predict how the theory will look after a scientific revolution is doomed to failure.
Your and Michael's claim that the MOND theory was refuted by the experience as you wrote "for example of galaxy M94 whose motion is only explained by Newton's formulas and therefore any change in the formulas will actually fail the calculation" stands in contradiction to what we know about scientific development from the history of science.
Bohr's model of the atom was wrong, he was only able to explain the hydrogen atom and that too with a limited guarantee, despite this his theory was a breakthrough and won him the Nobel Prize. In times of scientific revolutions, partially valid theories arise. They still do not explain all the phenomena and even contradict some of the observations, but they are an important milestone on the way to the new theory. The MOND theory manages to explain in a simple way laws obtained by observation, for example the Tully-Fisher relation. It is very difficult to impossible to explain this observational relation using dark matter, while using MOND it is obtained in a trivial way.
There is something real about the Hatley-Fisher relationship, it is not a strange coincidence.
to Nimrod
And if from the way the twenty options are constructed you will be convinced that these are all the options, even then you will decide that it is not certain that one of them is the right one?
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Oops
Tasting = compatible
Nimrod
In my opinion, regarding your question 34, in retrospect, they always try to reconcile the theory with the observations and claim that it tastes like what was expected to be accepted. Zvi's basic claim, if I understand it correctly, is that within the framework of what we currently know about the classification of elementary particles, that is, the standard model, there is a possibility of adding the particles of the dark matter without fundamentally changing the theory. It should be noted that this is a very long almanac process in which there were many proposals for the nature of the dark matter particle that were rejected one by one and today there is one theory that has not yet been rejected.
Is the dark matter like the Higgs that according to the theory it should exist only before it was discovered in the experiment?
In my opinion, the situation is far from that. Firstly, dark matter is not part of a theory, but was defined ad hoc to match observations to an existing theory. I will explain a little more why I think we are facing a scientific revolution, I have already done so in a large number of discussions, so simply with your permission I will copy my responses from these discussions:
A little about the current problems in astrophysics and cosmology.
The dark matter:
There are observations that do not fit the theory of rotation speed of stars in the galaxy. To explain the discrepancy, the retention of dark matter was raised.
1. The dark matter theory does not make any predictions, the only prediction is that this matter will be discovered in the laboratory!
facts:
A. Dark matter, despite being predicted for over seventy years, has not yet been discovered in a laboratory.
B. Dark matter originated in astrophysics and not in the theory of elementary particles. Attempts were made to expand the particle theory to find a candidate for the dark matter (as mentioned, as Tzvi wrote, the theory regarding the dark matter also does not contradict the standard model).
For each galaxy, its dark matter distribution must be assumed ad hoc to explain the velocity field of the stars in it. It is not enough to observe the mass distribution in the galaxy to determine the velocity field, fine-tuning must be done.
Therefore, we have here a theory that predicts one fact, namely that there is dark matter and despite attempts for seventy years such matter has not yet been found.
In this sense, for me, dark matter is similar to the previously neglected ether theory.
dark energy:
1. An acceleration of space-time was found, and was raised from Einstein's cosmological constant, which occasionally returned like the phoenix.
I have no problem with the cosmological constant but when it is attributed to vacuum energy there is a problem of a very large number of orders of magnitude (120 if I am not mistaken) the biggest discrepancy ever raised in science!
General problems:
1. There is currently no quantum theory of gravity
2. There is no connection of gravitation with the other three forces in nature.
In my opinion, the above points point to serious problems in the existing theory
They can be solved one by one, but together they form a decisive testimony in my opinion.
It is enough to look at the history of scientific teachings to understand that we are on the verge of a scientific revolution.
Yehuda,
Your response from 34 doesn't really deal with my question from 43.
If there are 20 theories, I wouldn't even be willing to bet that one of them is definitely correct (although there may be a high chance that one of them is correct, but it's far from absolute certainty) because I don't think it's a correct scientific approach.
I very much agree with Ehud, that there is a reasonable chance that we are before a scientific revolution, but you never know, if a dark mass is discovered it will also be a kind of scientific revolution, because there are still question marks on the subject.
Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the theory that is based on the dark mass, I refer to it as the dominant theory nowadays, but I am still not convinced of its validity. I assume that the scientists who deal with the issue are also aware of the problems and that there is still a mismatch between the theory and the observations, the question is whether the theory can be corrected so that it matches the observations and it is indeed a correct theory, or whether it is a wrong perception of physics.
to Nimrod
Perhaps comment number 34, mine, which was finally approved, answers your questions from comment 43.
And regarding your last response, since I managed in a certain form of analysis to find all the options for a possible solution to the problem (twenty), then surely at least one of them is the right one! (the rest are of course incorrect)
Who is the right one?, maybe the dark mass, and maybe the pressure differences in which I believe and maybe otherwise
Everyone will decide which of them they will choose. So that answers your response 63.
Unfortunately, I am not allowed to publish an article on the subject here
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Indeed, anything is possible, I wouldn't put my money on any of the theories, because it is possible that none of the theories proposed so far are correct, although for now most scientists are leaning in the direction of the dark mass, but no one guarantees that the direction is correct.
If indeed we are wrong, we will have to go back quite a long way and correct our assumptions.
In any case, to prove the dark mass there must be its discovery, these theoretical adjustments will not be enough to assume that this mass does exist.
I would appreciate it if someone could answer my question from 43, it seems like it got a bit lost in the debates.
I understand from the fact that you write it with errors that he also routes you out from time to time. It's disgusting that we have to do this.
And regarding the key sentence in your response that science is not democracy, it reminds me of a physics doctor who told me - 98 percent of academia believes in gravity and dark mass, so everyone is wrong? And I wanted to shout that we are lucky that science is not a democracy. But it was at the end of the lecture and I was spared the lecturer's honorarium.
Good night Ehud
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda,
Science is not a democracy and I never believed in the dark mass, so Michael has nothing to write down and even if he had there would be no point.
MichaL
Record that another one has given up on the dark mass
Good Day
Yehuda Sabdarmish
Maybe I changed the train a little,...
In my opinion, the question of whether there is dark matter or not has not been completely decided. With both Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation there are theoretical problems as well as matching with observations. The question is, are we facing a scientific revolution in this field or are dark matter and dark energy enough to solve the problems?
To describe the situation today I will use an analogy that I hope clarifies the situation. The situation is similar to navigating with a map when suddenly the surface does not match what is indicated on the map. In the beginning, they try to adapt the new terrain route to the map, sometimes a small number of changes to the map is enough and it can be continued to be used, but sometimes it turns out that we got lost and it is necessary to draw a new map. The natural tendency is to assume that the map is correct and it only needs to be changed a little, but it is not clear that this is the case. In my opinion, the situation today is that we have gotten lost in the analogy of the navigator, which means that we are facing a scientific revolution.
to Michael
Why are you answering in Zvi's name? Let him answer for himself.
It's strange that you answer on a scientific website what you think others should answer.
Regarding the rest of your comment
Science is looking for conclusive proof of one of the most vexing problems of the last eighty years, dark matter and energy. Billions are invested for this. It is only natural that there will be a stormy discussion about the problem on a scientific website and it is also certain that every time things get sharper and things need to be explained anew.
It's a shame to put a plank on wheels for this interesting discussion.
But you are the boss and do what you want. I think you are wrong.
Happy holiday
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
As mentioned - this does not provide an answer to any of Zvi's questions.
Even before you wrote this, I wrote that you are aware of MOND and its derivatives (and even, following my explanations, are also aware that these theories don't really work) and Zvi even replied that he knew this and that in his appeal he actually meant to appeal to the other readers because he knows he won't convince you.
In any case - as I said - this response - like your other responses in this discussion is an attempt to reignite a debate that you promised my father you would stop - and a debate of Yehuda's against the scientific community whose history (and all the "reasons" you put forward) can be read in the links I provided.
to God
Response 34 was from Mechvat Lezvi as a response to what he wrote in response 29
It begins with the sentence: "You are right Zvi that Professor Milgrom and Professor Beckstein understood the sanctity of the data" and ends with the sentence "Kel Tov Zvi" etc.
I don't think there was any room for a comment, and I would love to know if it satisfies Zvi's opinion.
So Happy holiday everyone
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I said that you make up stories only because you claimed in response 52 that there were answers to the questions people asked.
In response 39 I explained why I did not release the blocked response. It's not because of the stories you make up (although they really are made up stories) but because you repeat them for the thousandth time.
Say now:
The response was blocked due to its trollish nature.
She was released so that people would see that she did not have what she claimed to have.
I do not form my opinions on claims in physics according to the love or sympathy I have for them but according to the degree of confirmation they receive from the findings.
Currently - of all the attempts to explain what is happening - the dark mass theory is the only one that has not been disproved.
In addition to this - this theory has been confirmed in several independent ways.
As mentioned - all this has already been discussed here to exhaustion.
Dear MichaL
I promise you every year to celebrate on Passover Eve the holiday of the reactions that came out of the labs to Harut and Apala (!!!) with great light.
(:))
What amazes me is that I know that you also do not sympathize with dark mass and dark energy and only see them as the best solution in the field
Sort of, "kosher for Passover, but stinky"
I invite everyone to refer to comment 34 and decide if I am making up stories so serious that they require expulsion from the comment field
Happy holiday to everyone!
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
I released the comment just so they can see that you are making up stories.
For L
You turn to me with a question but decide which of my answers will go into the comment line. Doesn't that seem ridiculous to you??
It is not possible for you to respond to my comments and when I try to respond, you decide which comment will go in and which will not.
Understand that in the response you do not approve, things are written that others are also asking and so it will appear as if I will refrain from answering them
Your behavior does not add to this scientific site
But Happy holiday to everyone
Hoping that the response will be approved
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda:
But you need general relativity to notice all the confirmations - including gravitational acceleration.
Feel free to go to TED if you want to make this farce universal.
Research rank:
If you understood Yehuda's words and the meaning of the fact that Yehuda says them interests you, you are welcome to read this comment:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/max-plank-and-first-days-of-quantoms-physics-1111083/#comment-137730
to Judah
When they say "general relativity" they also mean, implicitly, "Newton's formulas".
Newton's formulas are (to borrow) the yolk in the egg of general relativity.
to the last responders
You don't need relativity to create the dark mass, it just comes from Newton's formulas. They are not suitable for measurements in the field.
Rate research
I have not heard of TED. I will look into the matter and decide. I would appreciate it if you could give me more data
Glad the discussion is fascinating, but it bothers someone.
Hope the response will be approved
good evening
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Fascinating discussion despite the descent into personal lines.
Yehuda, why don't you contact ted and ask for stage time?
http://Www.ted.com
Nimrod (43)
This indicates that Einstein was right when he first assumed that there was something out there in space that was significant enough to be considered. I mean, that you can see that general relativity is the most suitable to date and has no alternative theory. And if we take into account that Einstein's assumption was also correct regarding the cosmological constant, then the chances are that general relativity is correct and only after the cosmological constant (and all kinds of other 'constants' 🙂 ) will help scientists solve the mystery of dark energy, the scientists will be able to come up with a new theory that will be a candidate to replace this one of Einstein.
(Actually, the response is mainly aimed at Judah)
Yehuda Sabdarmish
There is a fundamental logical fallacy in your words.
You are not proposing an alternative theory that is superior to general relativity. And as you said too
Others have not yet proposed such a perfect theory, including MOND and TeVeS.
So in the absence of a better alternative theory, the default available to science, as of today,
is general relativity. What do you suggest ? That science will declare that there is no valid scientific theory?
Because the existing one is not perfect and the alternative does not exist? I understand, from Zvi and Michael's words,
Because the scientific effort is made in both directions, one, updating the theory, the other updating and perfecting the observations
and the measurements.
Where do you have the great confidence that the research to update the results is wrong and only updating the theory will succeed?
Your answer from comment No. 15 below that "..it is a deviation of thousands of percent at distances of billions of times.."
does not constitute any logical justification for your position. Even the discovery and measurement of the amount of dark matter in the universe may be able to explain these orders of magnitude, otherwise it is understood that they will not be accepted as a solution to the problem.
If you were a scientist doing this research, you would have to determine the direction of your research and make an effort to confirm it. Since you are not a scientist, it is not clear your motivation to insist in advance on the correct direction of the research, while the research is in progress and has not yet decided the issue.
to Nimrod
If you were to confirm my previous response, you would see that I am not completely ignoring Newton's dynamic equations
Hoping they approve my response
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Another thing about the cosmological constant - general relativity does allow for the expansion of the universe (by the cosmological constant), but it does not predict the existence of dark energy (nor does it contradict it), or what exactly causes the existence of the cosmological constant.
deer,
Regarding the correction of Newton's dynamic equations - certainly interesting, and as expected it presents a quite different approach from the conventional wisdom.
But there is a difference between claiming that there is no explanation and ignoring it (directed more towards Judah).
A question regarding what you said earlier:
"Because the amount that is estimated to exist according to the effect corresponds to the amount that was expected to be in the universe"
On what exactly is the expectation of the amount that should be in the universe of dark matter based? (Of course I don't mean the estimates that came from observations of the velocity of galaxies in front of Massten, but mainly the theoretical part).
Regarding the cosmological constant, the theory of relativity initially referred to it precisely as a factor that should hold the universe statically, although there is indeed no contradiction with general relativity considering the fact that the universe is growing at an accelerated rate. But as you said, there is still no explanation for this.
deer
Why are sufficiently massive neutrinos needed as a substitute for dark matter? Why neutrinos?
The approach according to which the continuation of the attempt to solve a problem that has not yet been solved is raising the bar has never led to the advancement of science.
But do what you want.
Shabbat Shalom
Raising immigration is of the dark mass for eighty years we have been grinding it without any progress.
But do what you want
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Even in it you repeated baseless things that you have already said many times.
In fact, since this whole discussion is nothing more than rumination, it would be better if all comments on it were blocked.
As luck would have it, that particular redundant comment was automatically blocked.
I wonder what I wrote in response 34 that are not helpful in confirming it. I also wonder how long it will take.
Yehuda
will be hastened:
You are witnessing a recurring outbreak of a disorder.
Yehuda expects the science site to accept and publish theories that no serious scientific journal with peer review is willing to publish.
There are many reasons why these things are known to be far-fetched and many of these reasons were presented to Judah but apparently there is no cure for the matter.
to hurry
They will say that there is a dark mass there and therefore there is an impurity.
But my solution defines a phenomenon that cannot be explained with the help of mass, dark or non-dark, and it is, negative dimness, that is, as if you are looking at a certain region of the universe through a magnifying glass, for example, distant galaxies will also appear smaller and closer, this can only be explained with negative dark mass ( which still does not exist).
I also have a paper that shows velocity distributions in different regions in certain galaxies that cannot be explained with dark mass. Unfortunately, they won't allow me to post here again, so I don't even try.
Not important
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
will be hastened:
This is not about it.
This is a gravitational churning in a place where there are no galaxies at all.
Tell me, do you also think that all the scientists are stupid and all the wisdom was given to you and Yehuda?
You are right Zvi that Professor Milgrom and Professor Beckstein understood the sanctity of the data and therefore tried to change the formula, in their case it was changing Newton's second law. But what to do, and they didn't succeed and their results contradict the measurements, for example of galaxy M94 whose movement is explained only by Newton's formulas and therefore any change in the formulas will actually fail the calculation.
A simple mathematical analysis will show that apart from the Hammond theory and apart from the dark mass, there are eighteen other possibilities for the solution, that is twenty possibilities. Obviously, most of them are not true and most likely only one is true
An example of the possibilities: dark mass and energy, the Hammond theory, changing the gravitation formula, changing the gravitational constant for large distances, an error in the measurement of distances, another force instead of gravity, a parallel universe (from Professor Milgrom's article on twin universes, here on the science website), another dimension and more.
An analysis of all twenty possibilities by the method of elimination left me with two possibilities, one of which is the dark matter and energy which advocates that we did not measure well and therefore the data must be changed and therefore I do not like it. The second option does not consider the mass of the galaxies at all and refers to the universe differently. The properties of the space in which the galaxies are located are what drive them. This is apparently the reason why we meet galaxies with the same size but which rotate at the same speed but contain a different amount of mass. (Article here on the science website about small satellite galaxies to our Milky Way)
But it's hard to agree with that because it eliminates gravity for large distances and we were born with gravity.
I am sorry that it is not possible for me to write a comprehensive article about it on the science website. Although some of the things have been published.
All the best Zvi and I understand that you received all one hundred percent of the credit for your response and I have nothing left or maybe there are also dark percentages so maybe I will also get some credit (even Apple is something)
Shabbat Shalom
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Answers to Michael and Yehuda:
Michael - If a gravitational field is indeed observed in a place where a galaxy is not observed - it does not mean that it does not exist - and that is exactly
The discovery of Hubble and Spitzer - thousands of new galaxies and interstellar gas in previously "empty" places.
100%
I know that I probably won't convince Yehuda - I remember several discussions you held with him on the subject.
My response is more aimed at the innocent reader (say Nimrod) who may believe him and think that no one proposed such a theory for fear of being stoned.
deer:
Yehuda is aware of MOND, but if he had mentioned it to her he could have written "so when will the brave professor arise to join me" because all these things were not created for the purpose of joining him and in fact were created long before he started chatting on the subject.
He also knows (because I proved to him) that the current findings - not only are not explained by MOND or TeVeS but that these theories are in contradiction with them.
Many comments were poured out here on the site in debates on the subject.
Yehuda's claim that the possibility that Newton's equation is not correct at large distances should be examined is of course justified.
The place where he is wrong is in his claim that so far no professor has stood up and proposed such a theory.
Prof. Mordechai Miligrom developed a theory called MOND which does exactly that.
Another professor (not Dr.!) named Jacob Beckenstein (the one from the Hawking-Beckenstein radiation) developed the relativistic version of this Torah (TeVeS).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
Meanwhile, these theories fail to fully explain the results, and instead of WIMP particles, it seems that massive enough neutrinos are needed to function as a substitute for dark matter.
It is possible that one day it will turn out that they are correct, and general relativity is wrong (Niton's theory is an approximation of relativity, it itself has already been disproved) - in the meantime, most of the evidence supports general relativity and the dark matter accompanying it.
A word to Nimrod,
It is not at all clear that "something is wrong" with the dark matter.
Dark matter is a name for a certain particle (the WIMP) that does not react with the electromagnetic force.
It's not a catastrophe - neutrinos don't react to it either and we've already found them, some particles don't react to the strong nuclear force, some to the weak one, everything is fine... The thing is, because he doesn't respond, they haven't discovered him yet.
So why believe it exists:
because you see its effect,
Because the amount that is estimated to exist according to the effect corresponds to the amount that was expected to be in the universe
And that there is a slot in the periodic table of the subparticles (the extension of the standard model) that exactly fits it.
The discovery is important, but until now, it is not surprising that it has not been discovered.
The day they scan the entire range where they predict that he might be and still won't find him - then say that something is probably wrong - note, it's not thousands of years until they raise their hands - there are pretty good predictions about what energy field he will be found in and this field is definitely Not beyond the mountains of darkness (unlike quantum gravity, string theory, etc.).
As for dark energy, the situation there is already more problematic - but it is also important to set things straight
The theory of general relativity allows for the existence of dark energy as discovered in observations - the cosmological constant of the theory of general relativity (scalar multiplied by the metric) reveals exactly the behavior of the "dark energy". There are attempts to examine whether dark energy is something that goes beyond general relativity so far, not from the discovery of behavior that goes beyond general relativity.
So far so good, the problem is that we don't know exactly why there is such a cosmological constant.
Other components in the field equation of general relativity are well understood (one part is associated with mass, another with pressure, something else with electromagnetic radiation, etc.) - the part of the cosmological constant is not clear for now.
Friends, there is no need to fight so much, scientists have been doing it for years, leave the fighting to them.
Clearly something is wrong with us, whether there is dark matter or it is just our invention, in any case we have a critical problem in understanding the universe.
It is very possible that we repeatedly miss a certain mass in the universe and fail to understand what it is, I hope that there will be breakthroughs in the coming years on the subject that will be able to shed some light, because there is a serious problem with the definition of "dark matter", but it is difficult to argue with the studies that repeatedly claim that there is indeed mass One that we can't recognize.
"Dark energy" is also a problematic matter that clearly shows a lack of understanding of the behavior of the universe and what exactly causes it to spread at an accelerated rate?
Regarding the Newton-Einstein formula, he already showed us very well the limitations of the formula at high speeds, but regarding the programming of inaccuracy at large distances - I don't know of any scientist who was able to show any such connection and develop a suitable theory (most likely he would have been frustrated before).
I don't think Newton should be defended with holy glee, but in order to claim otherwise you need to bring solid evidence other than large deviations and a certain theory that can pour physical logic into the cause of the error in Newton's formula for large distances.
Have a Happy holiday everyone.
Yehuda
I deal with other things for the simple reason that there are other things that interest me and consume my attention.
But trying to explain the reality to you was really 'something not successful'.
Good night.
You deal with other things because you know when to stop doing something unsuccessful,
For example, we'll go to bed and see each other in the morning
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
You are wrong. Dogs actually 'want' to be tamed. They treat it as a game.
By the way, you have nothing to worry about, I do deal with other things in my life.
Pity the dog. He doesn't want to be tamed and you actually try. You are lucky that a dog dies in less than eighty years. So you can try other things during your life
Yehuda
I'll give you an example from the animal world: when you train a dog, you don't take into account the times. That is, whether it takes to train a dog in 10 minutes or in 3 months, time does not play any significant role. And the time has no effect on the way of training or the results of the training.
If you apply this principle to nature in general, you will see that the laws of nature do not bend to the logic of humans.
Therefore, it does not matter how long it will take for humans to understand the 'thing', because time itself has no meaning in the face of nature.
Note that I didn't say you weren't serious.
You deduced it yourself (which nevertheless shows some seriousness)
What do you care what a non-serious person recommends.
Do what's in your head
Yehuda:
I understand that you are now recommending to us a new scientific method: the raising of hands method.
to Michal
I'm sorry I forced you to deal with a non-serious person.
to R.H. Rafai.M
Eighty years searching for the divine particle without much success. When do you think hands should be raised? Another eighty years?, in the third millennium?
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
When you see a star revolving around an area where you can't see anything - you conclude that there is somewhere in the area it surrounds - another star that you can't see.
The greater the deviation from the required straight line path in the absence of a star - the greater the estimated mass of the encircled star.
As the size of the deviation - the size of the vision.
Yehuda
The facts are that scientists have found or discovered something in space, but there is still no instrument suitable enough to measure that something.
Note, it doesn't matter what name you call it - the thing itself (as they say here on several occasions),
Exists. And scientists are trying to understand what the 'thing' is.
To this day, the explanation that is most acceptable to the minds of most scientists is given by the concept: 'dark matter' and 'dark energy'.
It is important that you understand that dark matter is also a type of rogue matter. It simply consists of particles that have not yet been discovered.
Hence the difficulty of the scientists in building the appropriate instruments that will identify those particles that are still unknown.
Yehuda:
Serious people check seriously.
Unserious people preach to others to check seriously.
Dear Michael
The planets had a deviation of fractions of a percent, you'd have to be a fool not to look for where the deviation comes from, but when it comes to a deviation of thousands of percent at distances of billions of times, I think it should be seriously checked that something is wrong with Newton's kingdom.
But you're right, we've talked about it more than once
And as the prophets said:
A righteous person in his faith will live
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Measuring the orbits of various stars were sacred.
The stars did not obey the formulas and thus the existence of unknown stars was deduced.
The existence of many planets in other solar systems is not known except in this way.
The energy calculations of beta decay did not fit the formulas and the measurements are sacred.
This is how the existence of the neutrino was deduced.
Because I said and you refuse to accept: all scientific activity is like this.
You are accused of prophesying because you prophesy and even allow yourself to do so without acquiring even basic knowledge on the subject.
Science glue = contact glue
Freudian fallacy (:))
But dear Mickey
There are no predictions here, the measurements are sacred! If they don't fit the formula then let's throw it away and look for another formula, why stick to it?, why? I was taught this in my first year of high school that formulas should be matched to measured data and not given to the formula.
It's hard for me to understand why people don't see this. What do they have with Newton's formula?, the measured data sometimes do not fit it even by several orders of magnitude and yet instead of throwing it away and looking for something else, we stick to it like science glue.
But that's what it is and those who claim to act logically accuse him of prophecy, well, that's it.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda turns out that his vision based on evidence is really sharper
Yehuda:
I have long since warned those concerned about the aforementioned defects. It didn't help so far
And by the way, Mr. Mi-L, why isn't there a list of the latest comments on the home page of the scholar? On the other hand, the list of new lectures appears in three places, which is really unnecessary.
Please handle it.
Thanks from everyone
Yehuda
Yehuda:
You get confused:
I didn't predict anything.
The one who tried to prophesy is you - and I quote: "And about the dark mass?
It will not be discovered for the simple reason, it was created in a scientific sin"
Not only do you prophesy, but you define everything that is done in science as a "scientific sin" because all non-trivial discoveries are nothing more than conclusions resulting from the influence of the discovered bodies and forces and not direct observation of the bodies.
I have already explained things to you a thousand times and I have no interest in repeating the same explanations again and again. The only reason I responded is because you started pumping out your baseless prophecies again.
Of course my previous response requires approval from the censor because I dared to write the explicit name of the commenter from response 5. When will you stop with these games. This is really not suitable for a scientific site.
Good night
Yehuda Sabdarmish
To Michael
Apparently, the debates with all the different kinds of pantheists on the site had an effect on you and you started to dabble in prophecy.
and to your response
I really don't see any hint of my dealing with prophecy here. But your vision may be sharper.
In addition, I understood that Yehofaz is talking about the dark mass required in the intergalactic movement in galaxy clusters, where there is also a lot of matter lacking, and if baryonic matter is discovered as Yehofaz said, then there is no need for dark mass, and my answer was that this would still leave us with a serious problem of the accelerated expansion of the universe.
Good night
Yehuda
will be hastened:
You probably didn't understand what you read.
If galaxy X is spinning too fast - nothing happening in galaxy Y will explain it.
If there is a gravitational cloud around a place where there is no visible matter - no (visible) galaxy will explain it.
Yehuda:
When do you intend to establish the department of prophetic physics?
Will a misunderstanding in physics be one of the conditions for admission to the class?
to hurry
Any discovery of mass will still leave us with a problem if we continue to adhere to Newton's gravitation formula because the expansion of the universe is accelerating and it is impossible for it to be like this with all the massive mass that exists, dark or violent. Therefore, the invention of the dark energy that will cause the universe to accelerate and expand is also required. Only canceling the behavior of gravity according to Newton's formula will prevent us from having to search for masses in the universe and even more dark energies in the universe
Good night
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Not long ago it was reported that through Hubble and Spitzer they discovered a lot of galaxies and interstellar gas that had not been observed before, and that the additional amount
This eliminates the need for the dark matter theory
Does anyone know where you can watch the film Transtented Man (about Kurzwil) live? Thanks
I am very sorry that a more important reason for the great research done in the study of the dark mass is not emphasized here.
I have no doubt that the scenery in the area of Mount Gran Sasso is amazing with excellent snow for skiing and you can also learn a lot about the history of the place there, for example that at the end of August 1943 Mussolini was transferred from his prison to a resort hotel for skiers - on the summit of Mount Gran Sasso -sasso) in the Italian Apennines.
That is why there are advantages to research on dark matter that allows you to go to the sites as above and there is nothing left to say and congratulate: "Yes, they will multiply".
And about the dark mass?
It will not be discovered for the simple reason, it was created in a scientific sin:
You must not change data for any scientific formula even if it is for Newton's sacred formula of gravitation.
And here they insist on adhering to the holy formula even though the data are five times or even five hundred times deviant from the measurements obtained from the Newtonian formula.
So when will the brave professor arise and join me and say the simple things: gravitation does not operate according to Newton's formula at the great cosmological distances. point.
Must be a professor. Dr. They just won't listen to him.
And by the way, tonight in one hour there is an observation by the Israeli Astronomical Society at Tel Aviv port. True, it's not Italy, but it's still a wonderful place and the women from the association are lovely
All the best
Sabdarmish Yehuda