• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Introducing "Dark Matter"

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
You do know that SUSY is still hypothetical? There is no evidnce for it yet and some people hope to see some at the LHC in 10 years time but that will be a long wait.

BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'

So far the evidence isn't looking good in if you're a big SUSY fan.

If SUSY gets the mass of the Higgs right, then there is some indirect evidence for it.
There are almost as many SUSY options to choose from as there are inflation sky entities to choose from. One of them is BOUND to be "close enough". ;)

That is how science has worked. We use the current models until they are replaced. Until we find better models, we have to use what we have available.
I don't know how the mainstream defines "better". They seem to be intent on NOT changing their models even when the evidence suggests that they should.

String theory for example is just that. There are many ideas around in the theory circles for new starting points. But there isn't enough people working on all the ideas to get them to a point where we can test them. It can take years for people to work through new ideas.
I can't even imagine how an atheist could entertain the idea of the existence of MANY new dimensions of reality, but reject the concept of God. :) I'm not much of a string theory fan myself.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
BBC News - LHC results put supersymmetry theory 'on the spot'

So far the evidence isn't looking good in if you're a big SUSY fan.

There are almost as many SUSY options to choose from as there are inflation sky entities to choose from. One of them is BOUND to be "close enough". ;)

I don't know how the mainstream defines "better". They seem to be intent on NOT changing their models even when the evidence suggests that they should.

I can't even imagine how an atheist could entertain the idea of the existence of MANY new dimensions of reality, but reject the concept of God. :) I'm not much of a string theory fan myself.

I'm not a SUSY or a string theory fan. I leave that work for theorists. These ideas are theoretical, I don't entertain any of them. If evidence for one appears than I start to.

I've spoken to several particle physicists who came back from a recent conference, none of them seem to have discounted SUSY yet and tell me it is far too early to tell. We will have to wait and see what more data brings.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
You're right about mainstream acceptance being a really slow process. I could be dead before they figure anything out. It took the mainstream 60 years to finally accept even ONE PIECE of Birkeland's work on currents in space in the aurrora. He was dead for over 4 decades by then, all the while the mainstream preferred Chapman's erroneous ideas. At the rate the mainstream is going, it will be 200 years from now before they accept the presence of currents OUTSIDE of the aurora.

You mean, how they required more definite evidence before they accepted the idea. How terrible, the idea of trying to independent lines of evidence.

FYI, I'm now 52 years old. I've been a self professed theist for over thirty years now. I did do about a 9 year stint as an atheist before consciously returning to theism. If you check back on this forum in fact, you'll see that I've even posted to this particular forum for longer than I've been into, known about, believed in, or promoted EU theory. My original interest in EU theory was originally motivated by my scientific curiosity and my interest in solar physics, not based upon emotional need. It's a relatively new belief system for me compared to my theism. I think my interest in EU theory began in 2005, about 7 years ago. I was comfortably in my skin as a theist long before 2005, I assure you. :)

I'm quite comfortable with my FAITH in God, with or without an empirical theory of God. My theism/faith is not now, nor has it really ever been dependent upon EU theory. I accept that my theism is ultimately an act of faith on my part, based on a number of objective and subjective factors, including the personal experiences of my own life.

Once I discovered EU theory, it was simply obvious to see how it could be applicable to the topic of God, that's all. Compared to the metaphysical kludge that passes for modern cosmology (lambda-nonsense), any empirical theory today of God, or even EU theory WITHOUT God, is an empirical breath of fresh air IMO.

I can't say I've ever been much of a fan of CURRENT Big Bang theory. The big bang ideas that I was introduced to in high school and college were NOTHING like the ones the mainstream discusses today. Inflation wasn't talked about in school until probably the late 70's, early 80's, after I was out of college. Guth created the idea did it on a WHIM, a wing and a prayer as far as I'm concerned. Inflation has no scientific precedent whatsoever, but today it's a cult classic of a 'religion' none the less. The notion of "dark matter" was nearly synonymous with MACHO forms of dark matter when I was in college. It's pretty much synonymous with hypothetical SUSY particles these days. Nobody had ever discussed "dark energy" until perhaps 15 years ago. The more they've tinkered with BB theory over the years, the less appealing it's been to me. My displeasure with that theory began with inflation and it's been going downhill ever since IMO.

In terms of "dark matter", IMO it's simply fascinating to watch this train wreck unfolding in slow motion. Not only is the LHC data not looking promising for SUSY theory thus far, it's actually ruled out large swaths of energy associated with SUSY theory and effectively killed the most common brands of SUSY. Worse yet for the mainstream, the more our technology improves, the harder it's getting to ignore all those electrical discharges occurring in space. The energy release alone is simply staggering at the highest energy wavelengths.

The point stands, with dark energy and dark matter your entire "empirical god" doesn't work as you require an electric universe. You can't have that with current cosmological models.

No one will deny that the BB model will be/should be replaced, the issue is with what. There isn't an alternative at the moment (that I'm aware of). Science tends to come in shifts, just waiting for a form of quantum gravity to appear that can be tested so we can compare it to current cosmological models.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
I'm not a SUSY or a string theory fan. I leave that work for theorists. These ideas are theoretical, I don't entertain any of them. If evidence for one appears than I start to.

I've spoken to several particle physicists who came back from a recent conference, none of them seem to have discounted SUSY yet and tell me it is far too early to tell. We will have to wait and see what more data brings.

Nobody has ever discounted God either, but that doesn't stop some people from declaring themselves to be atheists. ;)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
You mean, how they required more definite evidence before they accepted the idea. How terrible, the idea of trying to independent lines of evidence.

It's not the independent line of evidence I'm worried about, it's the snails pace of change, unless it's METAPHYSICAL change, that I resent. Empirical theories seem to take FOREVER to gain mainstream acceptance.

The point stands, with dark energy and dark matter your entire "empirical god" doesn't work as you require an electric universe.

Technically we could live in an electric universe *WITH* dark mater AND dark energy, so you're point is actually moot. My resistance to the "dark" stuff is based upon EMPIRICAL grounds. The fact our technology is limited and our galaxy models are flawed is NOT evidence that exotic forms of matter exist.

You can't have that with current cosmological models.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not? Why does it have to be "either or"?

No one will deny that the BB model will be/should be replaced, the issue is with what. There isn't an alternative at the moment (that I'm aware of).

It's the "that I'm aware of" that I"m worried about. Such alternatives already exist IMO.

Science tends to come in shifts, just waiting for a form of quantum gravity to appear that can be tested so we can compare it to current cosmological models.

I'm equally sure it will "shift" toward EU theory too, but maybe not until after I'm dead. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed

FYI, other studies done on the shape of electrons also tend to cast doubt on the simplest forms of SUSY theory. There's literally NO evidence for exotic forms of matter, and SOME evidence to suggest that SUSY theory is wrong. IMO it makes a lot more sense to simply go back to the drawing board in terms of our original assumptions about galaxy formation processes, particularly in light of recent observations.
 
Upvote 0

NGC 6712

Newbie
Mar 27, 2012
526
14
Princeton, NJ
✟23,262.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
BBC News - Electron particle's shape revealed

FYI, other studies done on the shape of electrons also tend to cast doubt on the simplest forms of SUSY theory. There's literally NO evidence for exotic forms of matter, and SOME evidence to suggest that SUSY theory is wrong. IMO it makes a lot more sense to simply go back to the drawing board in terms of our original assumptions about galaxy formation processes, particularly in light of recent observations.
This is a great example of why popular science articles should be avoided. An electron does not have a shape - it is a point. What these popular reports are not telling you is that this experiment is a measure of the electron dipole moment which in a classical physics sense can be thought of as indicating a shape. But it is a quantum world and the EDM is not a "shape".
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Site Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟320,648.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
This is a great example of why popular science articles should be avoided. An electron does not have a shape - it is a point.

Define "point" in terms of actual physics. We know it has a specific MASS. Why wouldn't it have a specific 'shape'?

Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073003 (2008): Coherent Electron Scattering Captured by an Attosecond Quantum Stroboscope
#70: A Single Electron Is Caught on Film | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine

What these popular reports are not telling you is that this experiment is a measure of the electron dipole moment which in a classical physics sense can be thought of as indicating a shape. But it is a quantum world and the EDM is not a "shape".

I don't know. That image makes an electron look kinda 'round' rather than say triangular, or rectangular. What do you mean it doesn't have a "shape"?
 
Upvote 0

NGC 6712

Newbie
Mar 27, 2012
526
14
Princeton, NJ
✟23,262.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Define "point" in terms of actual physics. We know it has a specific MASS. Why wouldn't it have a specific 'shape'?

Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073003 (2008): Coherent Electron Scattering Captured by an Attosecond Quantum Stroboscope
#70: A Single Electron Is Caught on Film | Subatomic Particles | DISCOVER Magazine



I don't know. That image makes an electron look kinda 'round' rather than say triangular, or rectangular. What do you mean it doesn't have a "shape"?
Point = zero radius. I don't see the relevance of those links. That image is a stroboscopic image. What has that got to do with this?
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Point = zero radius. I don't see the relevance of those links. That image is a stroboscopic image. What has that got to do with this?

So, is electron the dark matter? or one of the dark matter?
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
This is a great example of why popular science articles should be avoided. An electron does not have a shape - it is a point. What these popular reports are not telling you is that this experiment is a measure of the electron dipole moment which in a classical physics sense can be thought of as indicating a shape. But it is a quantum world and the EDM is not a "shape".

To follow up on that - the abstract:

The electron is predicted to be slightly aspheric1, with a distortion characterized by the electric dipole moment (EDM), de. No experiment has ever detected this deviation. The standard model of particle physics predicts that de is far too small to detect2, being some eleven orders of magnitude smaller than the current experimental sensitivity. However, many extensions to the standard model naturally predict much larger values of de that should be detectable3. This makes the search for the electron EDM a powerful way to search for new physics and constrain the possible extensions. In particular, the popular idea that new supersymmetric particles may exist at masses of a few hundred GeV/c2 (where c is the speed of light) is difficult to reconcile with the absence of an electron EDM at the present limit of sensitivity2, 4. The size of the EDM is also intimately related to the question of why the Universe has so little antimatter. If the reason is that some undiscovered particle interaction5 breaks the symmetry between matter and antimatter, this should result in a measurable EDM in most models of particle physics2. Here we use cold polar molecules to measure the electron EDM at the highest level of precision reported so far, providing a constraint on any possible new interactions. We obtain de = (&#8722;2.4&#8201;±&#8201;5.7stat&#8201;±&#8201;1.5syst)&#8201;×&#8201;10&#8722;28e&#8201;cm, where e is the charge on the electron, which sets a new upper limit of |de|&#8201;<&#8201;10.5&#8201;×&#8201;10&#8722;28e&#8201;cm with 90 per cent confidence. This result, consistent with zero, indicates that the electron is spherical at this improved level of precision. Our measurement of atto-electronvolt energy shifts in a molecule probes new physics at the tera-electronvolt energy scale2.
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
It's not the independent line of evidence I'm worried about, it's the snails pace of change, unless it's METAPHYSICAL change, that I resent. Empirical theories seem to take FOREVER to gain mainstream acceptance.

You mean how they had to invent a satellite first to test his results. Of course it was slow. Now experiments take around 10 to 15 years to go through planning and then launch. It is very slow and that won't change any time soon.

Technically we could live in an electric universe *WITH* dark mater AND dark energy, so you're point is actually moot. My resistance to the "dark" stuff is based upon EMPIRICAL grounds. The fact our technology is limited and our galaxy models are flawed is NOT evidence that exotic forms of matter exist.

Ok, I'll bite. Why not? Why does it have to be "either or"?

With dark matter and dark energy, plasma cosmology doesn't work. The whole thing hinges on EM forces, which we know don't work on such large scales with any real strength. Only gravity can.

It's the "that I'm aware of" that I"m worried about. Such alternatives already exist IMO.

Well there are most likely have to better ideas than an EU.

I'm equally sure it will "shift" toward EU theory too, but maybe not until after I'm dead. :)

I'm sure it will shift but if we get a theory for quantum gravity I suspect it won't be towards EU.
 
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
He was talking about how we can treat subatomic particles as point masses. Nothing to do with dark matter.

You are the one who said the subatomic "particle" has no size. If no size, then it is not visible. So it is dark and is (?) matter?
 
Upvote 0
N

Nabobalis

Guest
You are the one who said the subatomic "particle" has no size. If no size, then it is not visible. So it is dark and is (?) matter?

It has a size, its just so small we can treat them as point-like particles (i.e we have little to no hope atm of measuring its radius). The shape of an electron doesn't exist since they are point like.

We can see electrons since they are charged and we have measured the mass of them as well. So we can identify them.

Dark matter isn't charged and only seems to interact via gravity. That is why is it called dark.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,464
597
✟87,895.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

juvenissun

... and God saw that it was good.
Apr 5, 2007
25,452
805
73
Chicago
✟138,626.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
It has a size, its just so small we can treat them as point-like particles (i.e we have little to no hope atm of measuring its radius). The shape of an electron doesn't exist since they are point like.

We can see electrons since they are charged and we have measured the mass of them as well. So we can identify them.

Dark matter isn't charged and only seems to interact via gravity. That is why is it called dark.

I suggest you focus on the dark matter and skip the argument about the size, shape of electron. There is no point to defend a mistake.
 
Upvote 0