Saturday, October 3, 2009

"Dark Matter ... Does Not Exist At All"



New Scientist: Galaxy study hints at cracks in dark matter theories. (Hat tip: Anaconda)

Dark matter is either weirder than we thought or does not exist at all, a new study suggests.

A galaxy is supposed to sit at the heart of a giant cloud of dark matter and interact with it through gravity alone. The dark matter originally provided enough attraction for the galaxy to form and now keeps it rotating. But observations are not bearing out this simple picture.

Since dark matter does not radiate light, astronomers infer its distribution by looking at how a galaxy's gas and stars are moving. Previous studies have suggested that dark matter must be uniformly distributed within a galaxy's central region – a confounding result since the dark matter's gravity should make it progressively denser towards a galaxy's centre. ...

"There is absolutely no rule in physics that explains these results," says study co-author Hong Sheng Zhao of the University of St Andrews in the UK.

... they say our understanding of gravity may need modification to eliminate the need for dark matter entirely.

16 comments:

Jeffery Keown said...

That's odd. If Mainstream Science(tm) throws out Dark Matter, Oils might have to start believing it!

KV said...

OIM,

The article goes on:

But Mark Wilkinson of the University of Leicester, who was not involved in the study, urges caution in interpreting the results.

"Although this clearly shows much more interplay between normal and dark matter than expected, it is too early to say exactly what this means," he told New Scientist.

Wilkinson speculates that normal matter may wield more of an influence on dark matter than expected. He says supernova explosions might somehow be able to blow dark matter out of the galaxies' central regions.

And, don't forget, this is an analysis...

This stuff is like ambiplasma, heavy ambiplasma and light ambiplasma...

I really would like couple of beers and couple of good games on the tube and nice meal and not the nambi-pambi of plasma, stone throwers, killer angels, etc. from you or Anaconda.

Anaconda said...

@ KV:

KV wrote: "I really would like couple of beers and couple of good games on the tube and nice meal..."

Take all the time you need...I understand it's not easy having a dogma refuted by observation and measurement.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn't it?

"Although this clearly shows much more interplay between normal and dark matter than expected, it is too early to say exactly what this means," he told New Scientist.

No.

It suggests there never was any so-called "dark" matter to begin with, rather, "dark" mattter was a necessary crutch to prop up the "gravity" only model of "modern" astronomy, which observation & measurement of galaxy behavior had falsified.

But, instead of acknowledging that the gravity "only" model was fatally flawed, a mythical substance was conjured up, which couldn't be observed or measured.

Couldn't be falsified.

The severing of "modern" astronomy's dogma from proper Scientific Method was born.

In other words, but for the falsification of the gravity "only" model, "dark" matter would never have even been thought of.

So-called "dark" matter was a result of the unwillingness to face up to the harsh reality of observation & measurement.

"Wilkinson speculates..."

Yes, that is what "modern" astronomy has been reduced to..."speculation".

KV attempts to distract: "And, don't forget, this is an analysis...

This stuff is like ambiplasma, heavy ambiplasma and light ambiplasma..."

The difference is clear, ambiplasma has been dropped and is not part of mature Plasma Cosmology, today, even though it was proposed by the founder of Plasma Cosmology, Hannes Alfven.

Why?

Because there has been no observation & measurement to support the idea, either in the laboratory or in space, and duly in accordance with the tenents of the Scientific Method was dropped.

Whereas, "dark" matter is still at the very heart of "modern" astronomy.

Literally, at the central core of "modern" astronomy.

So, Wilkerson is left sputtering about various speculations.

Enough said.

Anaconda said...

Enough said...well, not quite, not by a long way.

So-called "dark" matter is in actuality nothing more than magical pixie dust to be sprinkled here, there, anywhere, needed to save "modern" astronomy's dogmas, right next to it's close cousin, so-called "dark" energy, designed to shepperd a host of mythical animals in "modern" astronomy's menagerie.

The list is long, starting with the "big bang", "black holes", and "neutron" stars.

Yes, there is a crisis in "modern" astronomy, there is a heart of darkness in "modern" astronomy, today.

So-called "dark" substances, which can't be observed or measured make up over 80% of "modern" astronomy's view of the Universe.

Seemingly, "modern" astronomy wants to follow the darkness.

Whereas, Plasma Cosmology suggests that Science follow the light, electromagnetism, which can be observed & measured, studied in plasma physics laboratories and increasingly observed & measured, per the Scientific Method, by in situ satellite probes in space, itself.

Plasma makes up over 99.9% of the visible matter in the Universe.

Electromagnetism is the strongest and most dynamic of the Fundamental Forces in the Universe, 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity.

Perhaps that is where "modern" astronomy should focus its energies in the future.

KV said...

Anaconda,

I already got my beer chilling, it is Octoberfest time! Not nambi-pambi ambi/bidext plasma nonsense.

Live a life!

Anaconda said...

You know the other side in an argument is out of logical responses when it is reduced to adjectives like "nambi-pambi" and repeats the same argument that has already been addressed and dismissed.

So-called "dark" matter along with being a crutch to avoid the falsification of the gravity "only" model is another of a long list of devices conjured up to avoid discussion of plasma, charged particles, and electromagnetism in space.

Others include "magnetic reconnection" and "frozen in" magnetic field lines, never mind that magnetic field lines don't actually exist, rather, a magnetic field is a undifferentialted vector field of force, there are no "lines" in actuality.

So while astronomers are reduced to "nambi-pambi" adjectives in a vain attempt to generate prejudice against things they don't like, the reality is this:

Magnetism has been repeatedly observed & measured in deep-space.

And as this website has repeatedly observed: You can't have the "magnetic" without the "electro", they are two sides of the same coin, you can't have one without the other, per Maxwell's equations and confirmation in various electro-magnetic experiments in plasma laboratories.

Magnetic fields in the Orion molecular cloud region (click link for image of magnetic fields in Orion molecular cloud region).

Caption of the, above, linked picture:

"Anchoring Magnetic Field in Turbulent Molecular Clouds wrote: Figure 1. Magnetic fields in the Orion molecular cloud region. The background image shows the IRAS (Neugebauer et al. 1984) 100 μm map in logarithmic scale. We superpose on this map the magnetic field directions inferred from optical date(blue vectors), and the mean of all the optical data is shown as the thick gray vector. The Hertz polarimeter (Dotson et al. 2009) at the Caltech Submillimeter Observatory mapped eight clouds (see labels A through H on the IRAS map) in this region at 350 μm with 20" resolution, and these CSO results are shown as insets, using red vectors on individual false-color intensity maps. The mean direction of all the 350 μm polarization detections from a given core is shown as a white vector superposed on each core’s map, and these white vectors are also plotted on the IRAS 100 μm map. All the false color Hertz intensity maps are plotted to the same scale: 140 arcseconds across (approximately 0.3 pc). Note that the spatial scales and mass densities are very different between the regions probed by the two wavelengths, but the field orientations are very similar."

(link to enlargement of, above, image.)

Note the "B field" in the image are the magnetic fields and note its directionality due to electric fields and electric current, flowing charged particles, electrons and ions.

As stated above the "electro" and the "magnetic" are two sides of an inseperable "coin".

Until "modern" astronomy acknowledges this physical law, it will be condemned to the eternal darkness of arrogance and self-imposed ignorance with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, as their primitive dogma is subject to open public discussion, ridicule and ultimate dismissal:

With the consequent cutoff of funding.

Anaconda said...

As an addendum:

Ir needs to be clarified that in the previous comment's linked images, the directionality of the magnetic field as represented by the B field lines is at right angles to the flow of charged particles, electric current.

Notce the color outlines of the plasma tend to be elongated suggesting the flow of the charged particles at right angles, or perpendicular to the magnetic field.

And this is in accordance with the right hand rule relationship of magnetic fields and electric current (click link for NASA's explanation and an image depicting the right hand rule).

From the NASA link:

"The rule [right hand rule] that has emerged from Oersted's work is as follows: If you hold a wire in the palm of your right hand so that the thumb points in the direction of the current, your fingers circle in the same direction as the magnetic field."

After reviewing the NASA link on electromagnetism and the right hand rule, go back to the previous linked image of the Orion molecular cloud [plasma] region and see if the flow of the plasma, charged particles, electric current, doesn't become apparent by noting the combination of the elangation of the plasma regions (direction of the electric current) and the magnetic field lines.

Note, KV has attempted in past comments to dismiss the role of electromagnetism in space, but why would NASA explain electromagnetism at all if it wasn't present in space?

Anaconda said...

Further addendum:

The history of Man includes the history of Man's understanding of his physical environment, including the physical dynamics and emanations derived from interactions of various types of matter.

In the above comment a NASA webpage was linked where electromagnetism was discussed and gave a brief, but important review of the history of the discovery of electromagnetism.

Embedded within NASA's discussion of electromagnetism is a discussion of electricity and its attendent history and magnetism with its attendent history.

The history of Man's understanding of electricity and magnetism is recorded in earliest antiquity:

From NASA's discussion of electricity:

"Amber is the fossilized resin from trees similar to a fir or spruce that grew millions of years ago. Amber is a beautiful, translucent yellow-brown solid. It has been used as jewelry for thousands of years. As jewelry it was often vigorously polished with a soft cloth. Ancient Greeks discovered a strange property of amber. When it is rubbed with a cloth, it can attract nearby bits of straw or grain. From the Latin word for amber, electrum, we get the word electricity."

From NASA's discussion of magnetism:

"Ancient Greeks wrote about a type of peculiar rock that attracted iron. People also noticed that when a sliver of lodestone was suspended or floated, it always turned to one position - a north-south direction. In addition, one end of this sliver of lodestone always points toward geographic North and the other to the South. This became an excellent method for determining direction - a compass. The end of the compass that points to geographic North was called the north magnetic pole of the compass. The magnetic compass was brought to Europe in the Middle Ages from the Chinese who had been using the compass for over 1500 years."

Eventually, Man's understanding of these two physical dynamics were brought together in Man's understanding of electromagnetism.

Many if not most of Man's greatest technological breakthroughs are dependent on electromagnetism.

It is the most powerful and dynamic Fundamental Force in the Universe, 39 orders of magnitude stronger than gravity, having both attraction and repulsion, whereas gravity only has attraction, and that at a much weaker strength than electromagnetism.

(Continued in next comment.)

Anaconda said...

(Continued from previous comment.)

So, this Fundamental Force has been at the cornerstone of Man's understanding and technological advancement, since earliest antiquity, yet, strangely "modern" astronomy predominately refuses to acknowledge the ubiquitous presence of electromagnetism in near-space (this is fast changing as in situ satellite probes observe & measure the electromagnetism's presence in space and at the Sun (see NASA link on WHY DO SUNSPOTS AND CMES OCCUR?).

As stated on the above NASA link:

"These zones are made of plasma. The flow of electric charge, which is an electric current, creates magnetic fields."

Why would deep-space structures, such as stars and including galaxies, an ordered structure of stars, be any different than the closest star to Earth, our own Sun?

Sadly, "modern" astronomy became enamored with gravity because of a couple of reasons: One, in a common sense way, it seemed gravity was important to planetary orbital dynamics, which it is, but, two, also with Newton's laws of gravity and then Einstein's General Relativity, it was thought that one could explain objects at a distance with gravity by use of abstract and elogant mathematical equations.

Electromagnetism seemed an exotic force which was harder to apply to "objects at a distance", harder to observe & measure at a distance, and, perhaps, equally important, it was very hard to construct abstract and elogant mathematical equations of description, as abstract mathematicians came to dominate in the field of astronomy, as opposed to empirical scientists.

If planetary orbits and mass could be calculated at a distance using mathematical equations of gravity, surely, their construction and that of larger cosmological structures in deep-space could be explained by mathematical equations of gravity.

In the absense of detailed observation & measurement, one could infer and interpolate using the known mathematical equations of gravity.

This makes reasonable sense, in the absense of detailed observation & measurement of electomagnetic phenomenon, but where the blunder or mistake was made, is that after observation & measurement was achieved that demonstrated that many if not most of "modern" astronomy's assumptions about the Universe based on gravity were wrong, astronomers refused to reconsider their assumptions.

Or activley consider electromagnetism after more detailed observation & measurement became available that revealed the ubiquitous presence of magnetic fields in space, from near-space to deep-space.

KV said...

Anaconda,

Where does QED and QCD fit?

OilIsMastery said...

KV,

The expression QED is found in Euclidean geometry -- something you don't believe in.

KV said...

OIM,

I was refering to Quantum Electrodynamics. By the way, Q.E.D. also means queen elizabeth died, among many other...

OilIsMastery said...

KV,

I know I was just teasing...:P

On a serious note, QED says spacetime is not a physical material object and General Relativity is impossible.

"If nothing is observable, it is only proper to say that nothing is happening; the system is settled into a spaceless and timeless stationary state outside our intuitions." -- Clinton Joseph Davisson, physicist, 1927

"Nothing exists until it is measured." -- Niels Bohr, physicist, 1930

"In the discussion of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory it has been emphasised that we use the classical concepts in describing our experimental equipment and more generally in describing that part of the world which does not belong to the object of the experiment. The use of these concepts, including space, time and causality, is in fact the condition for observing atomic events and is, in this sense of the word, 'a priori'." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

"The arguments of Hume and Kant have been confirmed by quantum mechanics." -- Sunny Y. Auyang, physicist, 1995

"Classic quantum mechanics seems to exhibit some of the characteristics that Immanuel Kant described about the relation between phenomenal reality in space and time and things-in-themselves." -- Kelley L. Ross, philosopher, 1997

Anaconda said...

@ KV:

(Prior to answering your question, I must make a reference to how "modern" astronomy is popularized to the general public: I recently watched "The Universe" on the History channel. The visual, virtual reality, animation is top-drawer quality, and, therfore, very enticing and beguiling. But what jumped out at me was the studied refusal to discuss anything electromagnetic.

No plasma -- only gas, no discussion of magnetic fields even, everything was discussed in terms of gravity, so when I describe "modern" astronomy theory as the gravity "only" model, it is quite correct because that, indeed, is how "modern" astronomy chooses to portray and popularize itself to the general public.)

KV asked: "Where does QED and QCD fit?"

I provide the Wikipedia discussion (only as a backgrounder) of QED.

Quantum Electrodyamics is a mathematical approximation, very precise, but still an approximation.

Why an approximation?

Because of the 'uncertainty principle' and 'probability principle'.

Yes, it can be useful, but one must be careful to recognize its limitations.

In this sense, it is akin to MHD, which is also an approximation, as you have so kindly stated.

The basic concepts of Quantum physics are fine: Probability theory, uncertainty principle, but you can only go so far. The 'wisdom', if I can call it that, is realizing Quantum physics limitations.

I am uncomfortable with the QED definition of an electron (please correct me as you see fit):

The electron is currently thought to be a ‘point particle’ (i.e. it is a zero-dimensional object, with no volume and no structure).

The definition of charge density is charge/volume; ergo, the charge density of the electron is 'infinity'."

This reveals the fallacy of QED:

"zero-dimensional object, with no volume and no structure"

"Zero-dimensional object"

Sorry, if it has "zero-dimension" then it is not an object in the physical sense. Rather, it is nothing but an abstract mathematical concept with no physical reality.

The definition of "point" in the above description is not a physical object, a physical object must have volume and location.

To say something has no volume is a classic example of an abstraction, particularly in the case of an electron which has a mass even at rest.

Mass without volume is non-sensical.

So, with that definition and subsequent discussion, I have substantial reservations about QED.

But electrons can be thought of as particles with discreet quanta of energy that can be observed & measured, and, therfore. quantitized.

(To be continued.)

Anaconda said...

(continued from previous comment.)

On the other hand, the electric field and the magnetic field are much harder to justify as "particles".

The other issue, which needs to be raised, is that much of QED has to do with photons, which is fine as far as it goes, but electromagnetism, in the sense of the electromotive force between charged particles, electrons and ions, is not dependent on photons, per say, rather, photons, the electromagnetic spectrum is how Man observes & measures the objects and phenomenon at a distance and is conveyed to our eyes (or in the case of the electromagnetic wave spectrum outside the visible wave-lengths, our detection instruments).

I do subscribe to the need to quantify observation & measurement, including the electric field and electric currents.

To the extent the QED can assist in that endeavor it is useful.

Electromagnetism is non-linear, per Maxwell's equations, this property has made it extremely difficult to construct differential equations
for electromagnetism.

Frankly, you it is hard to quantify until you have developed a qualitative theory.

But "modern" astronomy and astrophysics have so far steadfastly refused to look at the Universe through a electromagnetic, qualitative lense, so as to begin the arduous task of quantitative refinement.

There would be much room for individual recognition and achievement.

In regards to QCD, it is even more focussed on the photon so is less relevent in my view.

The dominant physical property of electromagnetism in space plasma is the electromotive force between electrons and ions, this is where the focus should lie, but one must beware that the electromagnetic spectrum, i.e., radio waves, visible waves, , ultraviolet waves, X-rays, and Gamma rays are how Man observes & measures these objects and phenomenon in space, but most emphatically in deep-space where likely Man will never have an ability to engage in direct in situ observation & measurement of electric fields, electric currents and magnetic fields.

But the possibility of understanding deep-space phenomenon, given our physical limitations, is truly remarkable if we jettison antiquated notions and assumptions that have been falsified by observation & measurement.

Science does not advance by clinging to dogma.

Raptor Lewis said...

If it doesn't exist, then how do you explain the bend that objects make in space-time?