Weizmann Institute scientists are participating in the most ambitious quest to date to search for the elusive substance that makes up about 83% of the matter in the universe
Are we on our way to solving the dark matter mystery? Weizmann Institute scientists participating in the "Xenon 1 ton" experiment (XENON1T) along with 165 scientists from 27 research institutes around the world, reported this week that they have set a limit for the cross section of the action of dark matter with normal matter. Following these results, Dr. Ran Bodnik, his research team at the Weizmann Institute of Science and their international partners are planning a larger and more sensitive scale experiment - XENONnT - already during 2019.
Dark matter is estimated to make up about 83% of all matter in the universe, but it is invisible to us, as it does not emit light and interacts very weakly with normal matter. The particles hypothesized to make up dark matter are called "weakly interacting massive particles" (WIMPs). The "xenon 1 ton" project is at the forefront of the search for these particles and the results reported this week were obtained thanks to data collected over about a year from a detector containing more than a ton of the noble gas xenon in a liquid state.
Deep underground, in a tunnel under Mount Gran Sasso in Italy's Apennine mountain range, the detector waits for a signal to report the interaction of a WIMP with a xenon atom via a tiny flash of flickering light and a handful of ionized electrons, which themselves emit tiny flashes of light. Dr. Bodnik and his team from the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics at the Weizmann Institute of Science are responsible within the project for the control systems of the experiment, their calibration and the statistical interpretation and analysis of the collected data.
Since the first Xenon experiment, in 2005, scientists have increased the mass of the potential target from 5 kg to 1,300 kg, while reducing the "background noise" 5,000 times. The next edition of the experiment will increase the mass of the target fourfold, while reducing the "noise" tenfold. "Because the XENON1T experiment is so precise and clean," says Dr. Bodnick, "the fact that no background events were detected in the purest region of the detector means that we can now set a limit for the interactions of WIMPs with ordinary matter. The new detector will allow us to search for these particles in a range that could not be distinguished until now."
58 תגובות
for miracles
I will look into the things you mentioned about the elastic collisions and respond. Must delve into it.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
I sat and thought: my explanation is still valid, as it is, even if only a small part of the particles hits 🙂
My explanation assumes there are many particles. If there were few particles - then we should see something similar to Brownian motion. A small grain in a vacuum was supposed to move randomly, not fall continuously. And for your information - today we know how to weigh a single protein molecule.
Yehuda
The fact that you say something is unacceptable to you, and that's how you solve the problem, shows something about you.
The continuation of your response is already more ... acceptable ... and I will try to give a good answer.
Miracles
Regarding the Pioneer, the NASA explanation received after 30 years of research is not acceptable to me. If it had been received immediately upon the discovery of the anomaly then I might have been convinced, but when they groped for 30 years I express doubt in the conclusions.
And regarding the comment that an elastic collision does not end up doing gravitation, again I disagree. The situation is not as simple as when you show completely sealed disks that repel most of the particles back and forth between the two bodies, in our case most of the particles pass through the disks and only a tiny fraction of them, let's say a millionth, causes gravitation. That we can still say that recoiling has no effect!
So it seems to me that you are wrong.
But I will delve into the subject again and would like to know if your opinion is the opinion of many.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
You have no "argument" regarding the Pioneer anomaly. Serious scientists have looked into the matter, and other serious scientists have done serious peer review. You deny these results because it goes against your theory. Don't kid yourself that it's me and you discussing whether or not it will rain tomorrow.
Regarding collisions - even in an almost full vacuum there is no attraction between bodies due to elastic collisions of particles. It's hard to explain it without a drawing, and with the help of a drawing the explanation is simple - but I'll try.
Imagine two thin circular plates in empty space - let's call them A and B. The plates are parallel and on a common axis. Take any particle whose impact on plate A prevents its impact on plate B. Meanwhile ignore particles that are exactly parallel to the common axis. Draw it on a page. Now - add the missing section in a different color, and you will get a line connecting the two panels. Now - look at the imaginary ray that goes from the point of impact at B back towards plate A. Think of a particle's trajectory along this line - it leaves B, hits A, and again to B, and again to A, until finally "out ” into free space. Now – reverse the direction along this zigzag line – and you've got a free particle coming from space and hitting plate B, exactly where the blocked particle would have hit. Without plate A, the particle would not hit B.
That is - for every particle that is blocked, there is another particle that "fills its place". You claim that the free distance is large. Thanks - because it only simplifies my explanation (but does not change its correctness).
Miracles
You talk about "existing theories that prove themselves with amazing accuracy" I don't find it so acceptable, if you supplement the accuracy of your measurements with the help of corrections with a huge addition of dark mysterious matter, then really, where is your accuracy when you can correct your measurements as much as you need .
But as you say your theories predict phenomena that do happen, not denying. But mine too.
You, like many others, "prove" that gravity pushing doesn't work because it doesn't work in the air either, and the air is full of particles that move from anywhere to everywhere, really gravity pushing incarnate, but there is a small difference which is the "average free path of the dense air particles" which is very small relative to the distance between the bodies. But I bet that if we dilute the air to a pressure of about a million atmospheres and thereby increase the average free path of the air particles by a million times, and do it in a weightless region, we will indeed see a kind of attraction between bodies floating in the experimental space.
So the air is absolutely not enough to disqualify the theory.
And about the friction. We are inside my air particles moving at a speed of hundreds of meters per second and yet we do not feel that I am burning from the friction. In addition, there is friction in the movement in certain directions, as we know we have a debate as to whether it was discovered in the Pioneer anomaly
Whatever happens, I'll try to build an experiment in thin air and see if we see traction. Maybe it's not that complicated.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda
The situation is not exactly as you describe. The first option is based on existing teachings that prove themselves with incredible accuracy on the one hand - and on the other hand, predict completely improbable phenomena - which do indeed appear!
The second option is to throw everything in the trash - for a theory that has no observational basis (except for the "gravity problem"), contradicts all existing wonderful theories - and in addition - simply does not work.
You keep ignoring the last point, which is very strange to me. I will try to explain with an example. I am assuming that your particle collisions are perfectly elastic (otherwise there is friction).
Imagine a small ball high above the ground. According to you - particles mainly hit the upper part of the sphere, therefore there is a balanced force towards the earth. But this is not true. Other particles will hit the Earth, and will be returned towards the sphere. If it wasn't like that - we would discover an attraction between bodies in a gas.
This in my opinion is enough to disqualify the theory. There are also other refutations. For example - bodies in motion are supposed to feel friction, then it is no longer a central force. For example - the bodies are supposed to warm up.
But - don't get confused: elastic collisions do not create attraction. QED
Miracles
You asked a good question: "What happens with the simpler solution that does not describe reality?" Doesn't that imply that this simple solution is wrong?" End quote.
Answer:- First of all it is clear that when we chose the simple solution, it was the simplest solution among countless other correct solutions. There was no flaw in the choice!, but over time several changes occur in the measurements such as they become more accurate and/or the range of measurements increases, and then, as you said, it may become clear to us that the solution we chose is wrong and then the question arises" - what do we do now?
The initial behavior required is to check the new measurements again and we may have made a mistake in them, but if time passes and no error is discovered in the new measurements, we have no choice but to change the simple formula and look for another one, because of the new measurements we now have a smaller set of correct formulas, some of which are correct , including the old simple one, were canceled because of the new measurements, so you have to look for a new simple one!.
Usually the new simple solves the problem.
But what happens if the new measurements eliminate any possibility of a new formula??
For example:- the story we all know, in galaxies it was discovered that Newton's simple formula does not work because each galaxy behaves differently, for example two galaxies look the same with the same mass but they rotate at different speeds?
In this case, we are left with two options:-
The first - to assume that our measurements are not accurate and must be completed, for example, with the help of additional baryonic or dark matter (but there are also other possibilities)
And the second possibility = to understand that this is not a gravitational phenomenon at all and that one should look for another phenomenon instead of gravitation which is the one that moves the large bodies (the galaxies, the clusters, the gas clouds and the like) for example - the pressure difference of the particles and photons moving in the vastness of the cosmos! As we know about that we have our disagreements.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
What happens with the simpler solution that does not describe reality? Doesn't that imply that this simple solution is wrong?
Miracles
You rightly said that "Einstein's equations are not the result of fitting a formula to a collection of measurement points." They are the result of mathematical development from a small number of assumptions" end quote. But this does not change the fact that we need measurements, whether we arrived at the scientific formulas by induction (like most of the examples I gave), or by deduction, (like the example of the theory of general relativity you gave) and since measurements always have uncertainty, then the theories built by them will always have uncertainty as well , or, confirmed by them (as in the case of the theory of relativity)
Regarding Ockham's razor, here the problem is different and mainly depends on the definition of Ockham's razor.. It is true that your definition is among the most common, "When there are two explanations of equal value for the same phenomenon, the simpler or more parsimonious explanation must be preferred Ni Yoter" end quote. But there are other definitions.
An interesting definition, for example, is the definition of Popper, our friend, who says that "one should choose the simpler theories not for a practical, aesthetic or pragmatic reason, but because simple theories are easier to disprove"
He chose this definition because it fits his refutation theory.
So if he is allowed, I will also adjust a definition for my eyes. After all, I said that there are endless correct options for each formula. I defined: "Of all the right options before you, choose the simple one"
It must be understood that William of Ockham was a stingy monk at the highest levels and even the Pope imposed embargoes on him. This miserly monk simply said: "If you can use less, use less" and from here evolution developed in its essence:- what did the poet mean and from here everyone adapted the rule to themselves.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
Einstein's equations are not the result of fitting a formula to a collection of measurement points. They are the result of mathematical development from a small number of assumptions.
Occam's razor means that you should not multiply entities unnecessarily. This is the basis of all science - the smallest number of assumptions that explain all observations.
Miracles
There will always be uncertainty in measurements. For example, to the question: - What is my height? I answered: - 174 cm, what does this statement mean? That my height is exactly 174 cm? I say 174 cm even if my height is 174.2 cm or 173.7 cm, it is clear that the height I measure is a result of the accuracy of my measuring devices or when the measurement was made in the morning or in the evening and in general, our language is not able to say things precisely about Measurements I make of phenomena in nature. Another example, for example, if I say that the wind speed is 39 km per hour, it is clear that there is uncertainty in this measurement related to the accuracy of the instruments I use to measure or the specific behavior of the phenomenon itself - in this case - the wind.
That is, every measurement I measure is with a certain inaccuracy. Therefore, when I mark the measurements in the axis system on my measurement sheet, there will not be points but points with their uncertainty, perhaps one cm in my height measurement or half a kilometer per second in the wind speed I measured or, in contrast, a few newtons in the gravity I will measure on According to my gravity formula. There is always uncertainty in measuring phenomena.
Therefore, when I plot all the results I measured with all their uncertainty on the measurement page, I will not get a defined line but a surface with a certain thickness according to the uncertainty. And this surface defines an infinite number of different graphs that will define my measurements, each of which may be correct within the uncertainty of the measurements.
"That's why there will always be uncertainty in the measurements and therefore there is no single formula whose graph will be single according to the measurements."
For our convenience we will choose the simplest graph out of all the graphs (Ockham's Razor) but we will remember that we did this only because of "convenience" and not because of "correctness" because all graphs are correct within the framework of the measured uncertainty.
But... I agree with you that there is always uncertainty in measurements because if, for example, I count the number of students in a class, then their number is an exact and whole size, and the goals that Argentina conceded against Croatia yesterday are exactly 3 and not 3.1 or 2.9.
Of course, I also agree with Sipa in your response: "This does not mean that conclusions cannot be drawn from those measurements."
To sum up: what I wrote in my response is very important in scientific calculation, and therefore I say that there are an infinite number of correct gravitation formulas and uncertainty will exist in all science even in "sacred" formulas, for example gravitation, or the relationship between mass and energy established by Einstein in his attributions.
You can read more explanation in article number 20 on my blog and other articles.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
I think you are thinking something very strange. You say "Therefore there will always be uncertainty in the measurements and therefore there is no single formula whose graph will be single according to the measurements".
There is no connection between the two parts of your sentence.
Beyond that - it is not true that there will always be uncertainty in measurements. And, in those measurements that do have an error - this does not mean that conclusions cannot be drawn from those measurements.
Miracles
I am really happy with my sensational progress. Until now I was in a kindergarten. Now I have finally come to the world of science. So surely you think that there is one right answer in science?, I'm sorry for miracles, but for your information, there are usually finally right answers!! Only in mathematics there may be one correct answer and yes not always, for example the root of 4 is 2 but also minus 2! But in science there is no measurement that is completely accurate, therefore there will always be uncertainty in the measurements, and therefore there is no single formula whose graph will be single according to the measurements. Go to my blog for the first chapter on scientific correctness it is explained nicely. But it seems to me that you will not be convinced, so let's wait for unit measurements to be carried out for this purpose. Until then we will each have our own truth
Good night miracles
And for Messi and his friends, my heart is with them, it was said today: - Don't cry Argentina!
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Yehuda
You remind me of an episode in the series "The Big Bang". Leonard argues with Penny's friend - is the picture on the moon an atom or the solar system. At the end, the "genius" friend says - "This is what I like about science, there is no one right answer".
Miracles
So again we repeated his truth one by one. Is there any point in continuing?, let's wait and see what the future developments in science will be and then we will decide if we should change our mind
A night of miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
General relativity says that the source of gravity is the curvature of space. This is her foundation. You don't get the basis of this theory. So where did I lie?
This also answers the second quote - you cannot say that you accept the theory of general relativity, without accepting its basis.
Does the light-time bending match your theory? You can invent some explanation, maybe, but you can't show (so far you haven't succeeded) that they are predictions of your Torah.
The question "is the universe infinite" is not scientific, and you know it, Yehuda.
I don't see what's wrong with my response. You say you get general relativity at close distances, but you don't get the foundation it rests on. How is that okay in your eyes?
for miracles
Why are you putting words in my mouth? , why is your entire response full of inaccuracies? It doesn't suit you.
And since I'm getting bored and there's still time until the next World Cup game, go through your comment word by word and see how wrong you are:-
Quote- So you don't fully accept general relativity. === Lie!, the word is completely unacceptable.
Quote- You cannot accept the conclusions of the Torah without accepting its basis, what is this, "I admit the facts but not the guilt"? === Sorry Nissim, but there is such a thing.
Quote- So, you are saying that there are observations that actually contradict your Torah?=== I did not say, as soon as there are such, I will happily abandon my Torah.
Quote - according to your Torah - space has no properties, but the observations say that there are. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You are not allowed to say "I do not accept the explanation for the observations", === I am allowed not to accept your explanation and look for another explanation! For example, if I see a flag waving in a high place, I will never explain it by explaining that "the flag has the characteristic of waving". So why would I accept the attribute of gravitation in the "fluttering" of space and its curvature. This is an idolatrous approach to give bodies in particular and space in general the qualities required of them in your opinion, we stopped with that since we stopped with Aristotle.
Quote - if you don't provide another explanation. You are a child in kindergarten, seriously?, === Really miracles don't descend to the level of kindergarten.
Quote - and regarding gravity at infinity - there is no concept of "infinity" in physics (or in science in general).
Quote - and for our purposes - if in the end we find that gravity has a particle aspect, then at very large distances, gravity is something probabilistic, not a very weak field (at least according to my understanding) === End, end, I agree with you on something, all reference to particles in gravity is a statistical reference.
Quote- Why do you even associate business with science?===
A. science related to business,
B. My knowledge of business analysis helps in analyzing phenomena in the cosmos. In business, for example, I would never explain a lack of production materials by explaining "dark matter" that I have somewhere. Another example, give your employees a salary in dark dollars and we'll see what output you get, maximum dark produce...
Quote- And why are you now disparaging Popper?, === absolutely not disparaging, where did you see that?, the fact that I said "Popper would make meatballs out of me" shows disdain???
Quote- When in the past you used to quote him?=== I still quote.
In short, miracles, a response that I would not have expected from a wise, highly knowledgeable person like you (and I am not disparaging, God forbid!)
Good day miracles
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Right now I'd rather see Poland and Senegal fight in the World Cup still first half and still no goals
Yehuda
So you don't fully accept general relativity. You cannot accept the Torah's conclusions without accepting its basis 🙂 What is this, "I admit the facts but not the guilt"? 🙂
So, you are saying that there are observations that actually contradict your Torah? According to your Torah - space has no properties, but observations say it does. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. You are not allowed to say "I do not accept the explanation for the observations", if you do not provide another explanation. Are you a kindergartener, seriously?
And regarding gravity at infinity - there is no concept of "infinity" in physics (or science in general). And for our purposes - if in the end it is found that gravity has a particle aspect, then at very large distances, gravity is something probabilistic, and not a very weak field (at least according to my understanding).
Why do you even associate business with science? And why do you now belittle Popper, when in the past you used to quote him?
Miracles
I'm glad we got rid of the theory of special relativity even though I don't agree with it on everything because I have another solution for precession and also for me the energy is not exactly equal to mass times the speed of light squared because the speed of light changes but let's leave these "trifles" and go to the general.
You asked if I accept the theory of general relativity?, I certainly accept certain of its conclusions but not always. I will first of all make it clear that I don't understand her too much and after your previous comment I will be more careful in my response, but since love is blossoming between us, especially after your last comment, I can only say what bothers me.
Well, I don't believe in gravitational reality according to the distance squared to infinity and I'm sure it fades away before we reach infinity. And in general it is known that we cannot scientifically determine what happens at infinity because we do not have any measurements at infinity and if a certain theory appropriates infinity then in my opinion it has greatly exaggerated.
Another thing that bothers me is the curvature of space. I don't like it, so maybe it makes you laugh Nissim and maybe God forbid you disconnect from the comment because we are not in the business of love, but, to give matter the property of curving the entire space, and the mass as we know, does this without even "making an effort"?... It bothers me . I know it's not scientific what I'm saying, and maybe not acceptable, and in general Popper would have made some kind of meatballs, but to me it seems like a delusional thing just like the dark matter and energy solutions.
I know you will ask in your next response: what about the lengthening of time?..., I really don't know how to treat it.
But again I will use when required to do all the relative clauses just like being married to someone you don't like. But she brought you beautiful offspring.
So what is the value of my response if she is only speaking from my heart? Simply, from my experience in business I have learned that heart murmurs or intuition in Leaz, sometimes hit the target
But as I said at the beginning of my response, I don't understand at all.
All the best, miracles and I hope you made it to the end of my response.
Yehuda
Yehuda
I get your explanation.
What I cannot accept is that you claim that you do accept the theory of relativity.
First thing - the Michelson-Morley experiment is related to the special theory of relativity. General relativity is an explanation for gravity. Two very different things!
So - do you accept general relativity?
For miracles and others
First of all, I apologize that the comment I wrote appeared three times in a row in one comment. Why? I really don't know. Apparently my computer also has its own personality and performs actions on its own accord. So please see only the first third as relevant and the other two thirds as invisible dark reactions that just say they exist.
And the sentence that struck your heartstrings, miracles, I should perhaps have phrased it differently:-
"To understand what the article is about, you don't need a super special education because we are lovers of astronomy and science and this is a site for people like us, and most of our education is from popular science and maybe a little high school education."
This was my intention, and God forbid that scientists are uneducated (although they are sometimes wrong), and if this is the code that will prevent you from reading my comments, then too bad. You will learn miracles from me, I also read about my humpback in your previous comment but I did not stop reading it despite the "difficult" experience it caused me. (And besides, the hunchback appeared at the end of your response)
Miracles, precisely the lines after your "problematic" sentence are interesting and addressed to you (and others as well).
Good day miracles
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Yehuda
You wrote "we are talking here about scientific matters that do not require a super special education". After that I saw no point in continuing to read...
Miracles
Every time the same argument.
I'm not against small-scale relativity because I agree with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. And of course I also agree with GPS, and regarding the effect of the change in the speed of light by one centimeter per second per year spread over the distances in which GPS is concerned with the error of two millimeter particles per year and the GPS system has not been able to exceed it, since its inception of the GPS the change is barely a mm so don't tell me it would have been detected on the GPS computers.
We have a disagreement about large distances where I disagree about relativity and the gravity it creates and the large demand for dark matter and energy.
Regarding the inflation that was again invented to bring the universe to the size of a few light years in the particles of the first second to the big bang. What's wrong if I come up with the idea that the universe started at this size and not the size of a strange singular point?, without the need for inflation, and enormous dark energy and all this based on laws that have not been tested in such a dense universe.
And Yehuda does not lack any education in physics. And Yehuda is a champion in business efficiency and in general we are talking here about scientific matters that do not require a super special education
And by the way, I sent the "Gaia" space telescope researchers in Israel an idea for testing the gravitation formula at great distances. appears on my blog., I will of course share with you and others if there is an answer.
In general, I'm tired of having to apologize every time I express my opinion on a certain scientific approach.
And as for my "hunchback", I think it was unnecessary to descend to such a level and I will ignore her.
This is science, so please respond seriously even to those whose opinion you disagree with.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Miracles
Every time the same argument.
I'm not against small-scale relativity because I agree with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. And of course I also agree with GPS, and regarding the effect of the change in the speed of light by one centimeter per second per year spread over the distances in which GPS is concerned with the error of two millimeter particles per year and the GPS system has not been able to exceed it, since its inception of the GPS the change is barely a mm so don't tell me it would have been detected on the GPS computers.
We have a disagreement about large distances where I disagree about relativity and the gravity it creates and the large demand for dark matter and energy.
Regarding the inflation that was again invented to bring the universe to the size of a few light years in the particles of the first second to the big bang. What's wrong if I come up with the idea that the universe started at this size and not the size of a strange singular point?, without the need for inflation, and enormous dark energy and all this based on laws that have not been tested in such a dense universe.
And Yehuda does not lack any education in physics. And Yehuda is a champion in business efficiency and in general we are talking here about scientific matters that do not require a super special education
And by the way, I sent the "Gaia" space telescope researchers in Israel an idea for testing the gravitation formula at great distances. appears on my blog., I will of course share with you and others if there is an answer.
In general, I'm tired of having to apologize every time I express my opinion on a certain scientific approach.
And as for my "hunchback", I think it was unnecessary to descend to such a level and I will ignore her.
This is science, so please respond seriously even to those whose opinion you disagree with.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Miracles
Every time the same argument.
I'm not against small-scale relativity because I agree with the Michelson-Morlay experiment. And of course I also agree with GPS, and regarding the effect of the change in the speed of light by one centimeter per second per year spread over the distances in which GPS is concerned with the error of two millimeter particles per year and the GPS system has not been able to exceed it, since its inception of the GPS the change is barely a mm so don't tell me it would have been detected on the GPS computers.
We have a disagreement about large distances where I disagree about relativity and the gravity it creates and the large demand for dark matter and energy.
Regarding the inflation that was again invented to bring the universe to the size of a few light years in the particles of the first second to the big bang. What's wrong if I come up with the idea that the universe started at this size and not the size of a strange singular point?, without the need for inflation, and enormous dark energy and all this based on laws that have not been tested in such a dense universe.
And Yehuda does not lack any education in physics. And Yehuda is a champion in business efficiency and in general we are talking here about scientific matters that do not require a super special education
And by the way, I sent the "Gaia" space telescope researchers in Israel an idea for testing the gravitation formula at great distances. appears on my blog., I will of course share with you and others if there is an answer.
In general, I'm tired of having to apologize every time I express my opinion on a certain scientific approach.
And as for my "hunchback", I think it was unnecessary to descend to such a level and I will ignore her.
This is science, so please respond seriously even to those whose opinion you disagree with.
Good night miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
You deny observations that confirm general relativity.
Dark matter is "nonsense", "an invention of the researchers"...
Yehuda - you do not understand science and the philosophy of science so much, that it is shocking. You say that scientists insist on Newton's equation - which is not true.
Inflation does not seem to you? What do you mean? "It doesn't seem to Judah, he lacks any education in physics and mathematics" - is this a reason to reject the theory of relativity, and also the quantum theory?
And the most amazing thing - you don't see your hump at all...
Nissim Vali
And which observations do I deny??, those who deny observations are those who change measured results with the wave of a hand with the illusory addition of dark matter that no one knows what it is and whose only purpose is to preserve Newton's gravitation formula at great distances, and that too without much success because it is still It will not explain the undulating deviations in the rotational motion of a number of galaxies (M51, N891. For example - article number 80 on my blog), and it will not explain the accelerated expansion of the universe either, so instead of canceling Newton's formula and gravitation for large distances and getting rid of the requirement for "additives", they actually add " Repulsive energy" in an enormous amount. that no one knows what it is, the main thing,…. Right…. Don't give up gravity!
So miracles, please, don't say I'm ignoring sightings!
Eli, your approach is a correct view of reality without any prejudices and such an approach needs a certain courage and you apparently have that.
Miraculously, you still lack it, and I hope it will arrive at some point.
Good day Nissim Vali
Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Eli
Yehuda is trying to sell his theory, so it is clear why he denies the observations.
what is your reason
Eli agrees with you
The dark matter is an invention of researchers who encountered a problem for which they could not find a solution and the problem that the gravitation formula did not fit the motion in galaxies so instead of correcting it or even throwing it away and looking for another explanation then they invented dark matter with the help of which the formula is not thrown over great distances. Details on my blog..
In addition, I sent an email to Professor Zvi Maza, a researcher at the "Gaia" space telescope, who might be able to get me data on the constellation Epsilon Lyra, with the help of which it would be possible to confirm the correctness of Newton's formula at distances. Waiting for his answer.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Dark matter is nonsense like the airwaves. It is an invention of researchers who encountered a problem for which they could not find a solution. The solution is found somewhere else.
The Carmel Market?, I used to live near the market, and I'm sorry that I have trouble getting to the Carmel Market these days. It was an experience in itself and the only weight problem was due to the fact that some of the nice and cheap fresh fruits and vegetables would be eaten by the time I got home. I almost never encountered the problem of missing weighing. just to slander. The mistakes that happen today in accounts in various supermarkets are of a larger order and must be checked. But it does not belong to my theory and particles.
Good night
Yehuda
Yehuda I am indeed familiar with the topic of mass loss, I remember the days when I would buy a kilo of grapes at the Carmel market, and come home, and the grapes weighed 800 grams.
Yehuda
In favor of your theory - we have not (yet) discovered the dark matter particles (we have discovered the matter itself, of course).
Against your theory - all the successes of modern physics.
Miracles
That's exactly what I meant. Everyone will explain the results as they see fit.
Therefore, to prevent this, scientific experiments must be done whose purpose is to measure the speed of light, lose weight, and send a probe into the expanses of space whose purpose is to test the existence of friction and more. Without these targeted experiments we cannot know the evidence for sure.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
Are you willing to provide links to your evidence?
I am not aware of any experiment that has shown a decrease in mass. I do know that there will be differences between the "standard kilogram" units. These differences contradict what you said.
I know of no evidence that the scientists who explained the Pioneer anomaly actually lied. On the contrary - their explanation was checked several times and found to be kosher.
I know of no experiment that shows that the speed of light changes at a high rate. On the contrary - the GPS system shows that the speed of light is very stable.
I don't know that they discovered that space expands inside a galaxy. And if so - it strengthens the big bang and weakens you...
You can't bring your theory as evidence!!! What's happening to you?
Details and a detailed explanation can be found here
Sabdarmish Yehuda
http://yekumpashut.freevar.com/
Miracles
Amazing evidence you want?, please:-
A. Weight loss of bodies over time - 0.43 micrograms per kg per year. Is that awesome enough?
B. Friction in motion in "empty" space?
third. Reducing the speed of light in cm per second per year?
d. The expansion of the universe also within galaxies?
d. The variation of Newton's gravitation formula for large distances, and in fact its zeroing at these distances, is that amazing enough for you?
And more.
Has this incredible evidence surfaced?
They have already appeared, but they are so amazing that scientists tend to dismiss them outright and look for other explanations. For example-
Weight loss that happens to the standard kg in different places in the world is explained.. that it didn't really happen,
The slowing down of movement in space that was discovered by the pioneer that is explained... by heating 60 watts in exactly the right direction,
The distance of the moon from the earth, which is exactly the same as the expansion of the universe per year to this distance (25 mm) and the further change resulting from the change in the speed of light per year (13 mm), 38 mm per year is precisely explained by ocean tides that may have some influence But in my opinion it is marginal.
And the biggest joke - the variation of the gravitation formula at great distances and its nullification, is canceled by adding dark and illusory matter and energy in a huge amount, the main thing is not to give up the "holy" formula!
What miracles are needed is a few first-rate scientists who dare to ask for the necessary tests and measurements
Will it do?, the future will tell.
Good day miracles
Yehuda
Yehuda
It has been said by great people (Laplace, Jefferson, and Carl Sagan for example) that an amazing claim needs amazing evidence.
The only "evidence" you have is that they haven't discovered dark matter yet.
On the other hand - the dark matter has many evidences...
Think about it
He lamented
The problem is not only that there has to be an interaction between the dark matter and the normal matter, but that we have to be sure that the source of the interaction is only the dark matter and not some cosmic ray or neutrino particles that passed through the environment. Therefore the examples you gave are not acceptable.
What's funny is that instead of the researchers saying "that's it, there is no dark matter" the researchers say "we discovered that the particle is smaller than we thought." When they do the experiment with much more xenon, the researchers who apparently will not discover the dark matter particles, will say again "we discovered that it is even smaller"!
Good night everyone
Yehuda
Conan
That is - you say "let's do something that failed in the past, instead of something that succeeded in the past".
And you also say "let's examine properties that dark matter does not have, instead of the only property it has".
An interesting approach…
If there is dark matter, and it has very weak interactions with "normal" matter, then it is clear that one tone of this or that matter will not detect anything. Why not use targets with a huge mass - for example, measurements of interactions with the moon, and perhaps even measurements of a target that is the Earth itself - or alternatively targets that already exist and are not currently in use, such as the underground water pool with which they tried to prove the existence of neutrino particles (and as you We also know where the scientists failed, and in the end a device weighing 15 kg in total was the first to detect neutrinos...).
And maybe instead of testing only one feature of the dark matter in a primitive way (i.e. gravitation between it and normal matter), it is better to understand a little more about this thing called dark matter and measure its other properties, which are unique to it, and normal matter reacts differently to them?
Yehuda
Right 🙂
We are far from being able to explain what intelligence, and/or consciousness is.
Today we know that "we" are not only in the brain. I've been claiming this for years, and now there are studies that show it. For example - we know that the types of bacteria in the intestines can influence behavior.
Miracles
You are right, everyone talks about artificial intelligence as if it is in the small pocket of all of us, but absolutely not!
If she really understood, then she would have self-thoughts such as "What do I need these DNA creatures called human for?"
But there is also a certain inaccuracy in your response, I'm not sure they will know what "peeing" is, but that's enough for now.
Good Day
Yehuda
Herzl
Einstein's doctorate was not on relativity at all. His topic was about a method of calculating the size of molecules.
And regarding dark matter - don't you think it's a bit big for you, and me of course, to express an opinion about its existence?
Since when is looking for a long time proof that something doesn't exist? Gravitational waves have been searched for more than 100 years. Guess what?
Benjamin
Today, we have difficulty simulating the intelligence of a worm with 300 neurons in its brain. But, let's assume that in a few hundred years we will reach the level you describe: an intelligence that is smarter than all the scientists in the world combined...
Do you really think that such intelligence will urinate in our direction?
for miracles
It is true that currently artificial intelligence is not a replacement or assistance to theorists, but it will improve
Because it is not a matter of principle but of complexity and this is what the human race knows how to achieve as well as it did
To build a computer that beats chess champions - something that was once considered impossible. Maybe if she understood
The artificial intelligence will improve a lot, it will be able to examine and reject (and maybe even offer) solutions to questions
For which we currently have no answer
for Jubilee
Intensive information sharing between scientists has existed since at least the beginning of the 20th century and has proven to be fruitful in quantum theory.
The question is the degree of complexity of the imagination and the willingness of several scientists to cooperate and see beyond
acceptable For example: Einstein took the figure of the speed of light and from this figure realized that space
crooked. He did all this when his imagination was using an elevator (acceleration-gravity equivalence)
and train Would he have succeeded in reaching his achievements if he had to convince other scientists (in particular himself
not exactly coming from the academy) to collaborate with him "on the wings of his own imagination"?
For miracles: indeed Einstein had a broad understanding. When they refused to give him a doctorate on private relativity, he went on to prove that there are molecules and atoms. Until then it was not certain whether matter was continuous or discrete, a debate that had continued since the days of the ancient pigeons. He received a doctorate for this, and of course he would have received a Nobel Prize, except that there was anti-Semitism.
And we will try to think positively: we gave him a Nobel for the smallest thing he achieved, to show how big the other things were for the Nobel Prize.
Levan Bar: It was justified to look for dark matter for a while, but it's becoming pretty clear that it doesn't exist. So you have to move on. It's just that even scientists have mental fixation sometimes.
Benjamin
Look at what is happening on the subject of "artificial intelligence". Precisely there the "intelligence" is concentrated in very narrow areas. There is a chess expert, and a Lego expert, and a Gerpady expert. There's a slime specialist and a melanoma specialist and a facial recognition specialist.
But - all this makes no sense! Those scientists who you claim specialize in a small corner, have a broad general education. Read their books and see how much they know outside their narrow field. Even the "narrow-minded" Einstein understood in very different fields - relativity, quanta and molecules.
Benjamin, this is what the internet was invented for: to share discoveries with everyone, so that every expert can give his angle to the various discoveries. It is not necessary for all people to know everything, you need to cooperate with those who know.
To all the commenters who claim that we should stop looking - it's nice that you have a solid opinion on the subject, but you are very far from the level of knowledge and understanding required to justify such a large investment in the search for dark matter. This is absolutely not a fringe theory based on one dubious measurement that has been amassed by a bunch of crazy fans that become bigger and more determined over the years. The world of astrophysics is not politics. Personal charisma alone or accumulated social circumstances do not sway leading scientists in the field to support a theory. We will not go into scientific explanations here, but as a general argument I recommend that you adopt a little humility and do not treat your collective gut feelings as a pseudo-scientific argument.
Considering the information available today, the continuation of the search at this stage is justified.
(if not written clearly enough) In the opinion I wrote to Ali I meant artificial intelligence.
It seems to me that the resources are being invested in the wrong places and therefore there will be no significant development in the main issues in the next two decades. I would be happy to be wrong, but in my opinion the key to development (or more correctly to retarding development) in science, is summed up in the sentence that Nicholas Butler (1862-1947) said: "An expert is a person who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing." Scientists specialize all the time. Newton, apart from being a mystic, contributed to science in many different subjects: mathematics, optics, kinematics (the laws of motion) and gravity. Einstein, as great as he was, dealt with physics ("only"). The point is that, because of their specialization, the breadth of knowledge of scientists today is limited and will be further reduced as the observations multiply and therefore they will find it more and more difficult to combine enough facts into (for example) an all-embracing physical theory. This is a human limitation that will not disappear, and therefore we need to produce a different intelligence as a condition for significant development (unified field theory, string theory) in science.
A. Ben Ner
We have been patient and waiting for over eighty years. Do you now want another year or two? Be that as it may, but I would suggest already thinking about the universe without dark matter and looking for other solutions that do not require dark matter and energy and gravitation for the great distances in the universe
Good Day
Yehuda
Yehuda and Herzl.
Even if you are right (in your claim that there is no dark matter) then you are wrong (in your claim that we should stop looking for it in more and more accurate experiments). This is a basic element in science. Only if you have ruled out a theory beyond reasonable doubt, then you can look for an alternative theory.
Therefore, please, please be patient, another year or two and let the research progress at the proper pace and reach well-founded conclusions.
To the first two responders - does it matter if the material exists or not, as long as they continue to fund their research? Isn't it a shame for all the hundreds of scientists who will be out of work if they really admit it?
I agree with Yehuda. There was a measurement that didn't work out. There are endless possible reasons. Some scientists have locked onto dark matter as the only "cause" and are looking for it…..but they can't find it. In the meantime, thousands of scientists joined and engaged all their days in the search. (Lihuda: 165 scientists in this experiment alone).
Recently it appears that there were mistakes in the original measurement. Clouds of dust in the galaxies obscured a large part of the stars. When re-measured with infrared light penetrating through the dust, suddenly everything works out. But all those thousands of scientists ignore this measurement. Not ready to recognize her. This is called "cognitive dissonance" in psychology.
It seems to me that all those scientists will continue to search for the dark matter forever....
The article is written based on the assumption that "there is dark matter, you just have to do everything to discover it." What does not go with force will go with more force."
The truth is that "dark matter" is an extreme scientific speculation, not even a real hypothesis. The fact that the angular acceleration at the edges of galaxies does not match our knowledge of the amounts of matter present, and therefore the general theory of relativity does not work either, seemingly - is not sufficient for the assumption that there is dark matter, with all the oddities required of it, and without a real idea of what its model is. For the sake of caution, a more hidden observational effort is required first, and at the same time - a theoretical effort to modify the theory of relativity.
I'm not saying that a solution to the empirical problem should not be sought, but the benefit of the research requires much more modesty and much more sobriety in the perception of the research starting points.
165 scientists look for the illusory dark matter and find nothing so instead of saying
"There is no dark matter. point."
They say "we can set a limit for the wimp's interactions with normal matter". They started with five kilos of xenon, they didn't find anything, now they are trying a ton, and they don't find anything, no interaction, so what will they do now?, ten tons of xenon?? Is there even ten tons of xenon on Earth??? When will the day come when scientists will learn from our beloved prime minister who said "there is no dark matter because there never was dark matter".
I have a brilliant idea, to jam the xenon ton in another deep place, for example in the Hamas tunnels in Gaza, where there will be a lot of interaction with the bombings of the Air Force.
Please respond gently
Yehuda