Dark Matter evidence found at Chicago not HLC: 12/18/09

LivingDog
LivingDog
Joined: 21 Nov 05
Posts: 97
Credit: 1,792,686
RAC: 0
Topic 194688

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

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,515
Credit: 435,510,245
RAC: 96,483

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

LivingDog
LivingDog
Joined: 21 Nov 05
Posts: 97
Credit: 1,792,686
RAC: 0

RE: Clickable link:

Message 96112 in response to message 96111

Quote:

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

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

Holmis
Joined: 4 Jan 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 689,589,917
RAC: 679,615

RE: PS: how did you get

Message 96113 in response to message 96112

Quote:

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

Use BBCode, there's a link to instructions next to the box you write your message in, or click here!

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,048
Credit: 107,761,380
RAC: 70,977

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. Blaise Pascal

LivingDog
LivingDog
Joined: 21 Nov 05
Posts: 97
Credit: 1,792,686
RAC: 0

RE: RE: PS: how did you

Message 96115 in response to message 96113

Quote:
Quote:

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

Use BBCode, there's a link to instructions next to the box you write your message in, or click here!

*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

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,048
Credit: 107,761,380
RAC: 70,977

RE: I know nothing about

Message 96116 in response to message 96115

Quote:
I know nothing about DM


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. Blaise Pascal

LivingDog
LivingDog
Joined: 21 Nov 05
Posts: 97
Credit: 1,792,686
RAC: 0

RE: RE: I know nothing

Message 96117 in response to message 96116

Quote:
Quote:
I know nothing about DM

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.

/\ != 0 ! :)

-LD
________________________________________
my faith

Ver Greeneyes
Ver Greeneyes
Joined: 26 Mar 09
Posts: 140
Credit: 9,562,235
RAC: 0

RE: IMHO : If you add in

Message 96118 in response to message 96116

Quote:
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.


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.

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,048
Credit: 107,761,380
RAC: 70,977

RE: RE: IMHO : If you add

Message 96119 in response to message 96118

Quote:
Quote:
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.

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.


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. Blaise Pascal

tullio
tullio
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 1,994
Credit: 32,063,693
RAC: 10,966

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

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.