Dark Matter evidence found at Chicago not HLC: 12/18/09
27 Dec 2009 16:13:46 UTC
Topic 194688
(moderation:
BBC Online
Take that you British ocean hoping neanderthals! HA! I spit in your general direction.
(j/k :)
So amazing that coincidentally the HLC magnets were made at Fermilab - in Chicago (ok, Batavia).
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
Dark Matter evidence found at Chicago not HLC: 12/18/09
)
Clickable link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8420089.stm
Interesting stuff, but definitely no conclusive evidence of the nature (or existence) of "dark matter" yet. Who knows, maybe "Dark matter" will, in the end, turn out to be the late 20th century equivalent of "ether" or "epicycles" : something we made up to make our imperfect understanding of nature fit better, but really not corresponding to anything "real".
CU
Bikeman
RE: Clickable link:
)
That's how science works. How else do you start trying to explain something which doesn't fit the current accepted known theory? IOW, theorists "make stuff up" and then try to prove their guess is in fact right. So dark matter is some scientist's best guess to explain the strange speed distribution of stars orbiting from their chewy galactic nougat center. The reason its called "dark" is that it can't be seen by the surrounding galactic glow.
--
PS: how did you get your link to be clickable?? I copied the text verbatim from the "View Page Source" in my browser and it still isn't clickable. See?
Non-Clickable link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8420089.stm
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
RE: PS: how did you get
)
Use BBCode, there's a link to instructions next to the box you write your message in, or click here!
Hmmmm ... "heat deposits left
)
Hmmmm ... "heat deposits left in silicon and germanium detectors" is "consistent with" and "it's so tantalising that you couldn't go to bed without telling the whole world about it"
Heat deposits. In other words they haven't accounted for all sources they can think of. Well that narrows it down to .... to .... any process that produces heat. Hence "While this result is consistent with dark matter, it is also consistent with backgrounds".
So then really no conclusions ought be drawn, eh?
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: PS: how did you
)
*sigh* it was there all the time... and yes, fortunately my head is attached. :/
The genius I am wrote a clickable link in red!
ME on a good day.
Thanks!
PS: I didn't want this thread here since I know nothing about DM other than the two bits I threw in to amuse the English.
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
RE: I know nothing about
)
Relax, join the pack. DM is a sign of theoretical limits, as per Bikeman. It's like a measuring tape that says there is 'this much' between what we 'know' and what we 'see' ... :-)
IMHO : If you add in the Dark Energy business then really you have to say ( per Occam ) that we need a better extension of General Relativity beyond the 'around about here' and 'around about now' data set which it was based upon.
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
RE: RE: I know nothing
)
/\ != 0 ! :)
-LD
________________________________________
my faith
RE: IMHO : If you add in
)
Well to be fair, if the energy density of dark energy is indeed exactly -1 (we've narrowed it down to -1.000±0.005 I believe ... also I'm not sure of the unit, if it has one at all), then it fits quite well into General Relativity as a Cosmological Constant. That doesn't explain where it -comes- from, or why it's so ridiculously small ... but I guess that's up to the Quantum Gravity folks.
RE: RE: IMHO : If you add
)
Sorry, I should have been more exact. GR can explain the evolution of any universe. If given the right numbers it can explain this one. What 'we think we know' is that the universe is flat on large scales, started alot smaller and hotter, is pretty empty of the stuff we find familiar here on Earth, and supernovae appear to behave differently now than they did earlier on. Dark energy & matter seem to have appeared as labels in lieu of some other criteria ( who knows? ) to assist GR in describing our universe. We need something outside of current knowledge ( including GR ) to fill out the pie.
Let's hope it's not like one of Terry Pratchett's conundrums - open this crate using the crowbar found inside!. :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Einstein once said that the
)
Einstein once said that the cosmological constant was his "biggest blunder". Prof Paolo Budinich, my theoretical physics teacher at Trieste University, once said "we made an even number of mistakes therefore the result is right". Maybe what we need is another Einstein blunder to straighten things out.
Tullio