Cosmic rays have surprising amounts of antimatter. Is dark matter responsible?

[Admin]

There's too much antimatter in cosmic rays, showers of charged particles that pelt Earth. Could this be explained by annihilating dark matter? If so, does it point to the existence of WIMPs?

Cosmic rays have surprising amounts of antimatter. Is dark matter responsible? : Read more

 

[jhixon]

Korean scientists make 1st discovery of dark state of electrons in solids for the first time in the world on 7/29/24 and it's naturally occurring, so it's dark electrons and not dark matter. Dark electrons is a FACT, and dark matter is made up

 

[fj.torres]

Korean scientists make 1st discovery of dark state of electrons in solids for the first time in the world on 7/29/24 and it's naturally occurring, so it's dark electrons and not dark matter. Dark electrons is a FACT, and dark matter is made up

Dark matter might be the "ether" of this age.
The future will not be kind.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

"Like "ordinary" helium atoms, antihelium can have three or four neutrons. That means it comes in two isotopes: antihelium-3 and antihelium-4." WRONG!!!

Helium has 2 protons and one or two neutrons, making Helium 3 or Helium 4. The isotope numbers are the sum of the protons and neutrons. The element name is based solely on the number of protons.

 

[jhixon]

Stop viewing this as particles and electron's, neutrons, protons as matter or substance because in our universe everything is energy, meaning maybe 10% of our universe is matter. It’s all energy including the mass, both positive, neutral and negative energies. All of this energy (energy and matter) is the fabric of Space and the fabric only works one way. I also believe that everything in the universe works from energy, vibration and frequency as stated by Nichola Tesla. The quantum laboratory in Japan in 2016 was studying electrons in a field and discovered 3 different spins and 3 different movements. There isn’t a spinning particle, there’s a spinning field, and that field is what gives rise to particles, so it’s energy and not matter that you should be focused on. The 3 different movements were: one goes to the outer edge of the field (is this the dark clusters at the edge of galaxies, actually dark electrons that do not give off photons) one circles in the middle and one rises up ( could this be the expansion of space? This is what prompted NASA to build a cold lab on the space station because they found that under super low cold conditions, like space, that electrons had multiple movements, and behaved differently than here on Earth. The dark matter that everyone refers to is actually dark electron's.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Just to be clear, "dark electrons" are not related to either dark matter in space, not cosmic rays coming from space. They are basically electrons that are in quantum states inside solid material crystal lattices that cannot interact with photons, apparently due to destructive interference. Reference here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02586-x

So, why are people posting about that in this thread about antimatter content of cosmic rays?

 

[Classical Motion]

What is energy?

 

[jhixon]

Just to be clear, "dark electrons" are not related to either dark matter in space, not cosmic rays coming from space. They are basically electrons that are in quantum states inside solid material crystal lattices that cannot interact with photons, apparently due to destructive interference. Reference here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-024-02586-x

So, why are people posting about that in this thread about antimatter content of cosmic rays?

So they exist here naturally , but they can't exist in space? Really, do you hear how that sounds. Only here, not anywhere else in the universe? Then why would NASA be studying electron behavior on the space station if we knew everything? Sure just invest millions to study what you already know? Just to be clear, Dark electrons are real and factual. Dark energy is made up, no facts

 

[Unclear Engineer]

What is energy?

Why don't you google it?

 

[Unclear Engineer]

So they exist here naturally , but they can't exist in space? Really? Then why would NASA be studying electron behavior on the space station if we knew everything?

They can't exist in free space, without a solid material lattice structure. That is clear if you bother to read the actual paper, or even its abstract.

And lots of things are being studied on the space station for lots of reasons. The effects of micro (near zero) gravity are of interest to material scientists for many reasons. But there is no reason to infer that the experiment you mention is looking for dark matter in space because of the Korean experiment used similar words.

So, the real question is what is your purpose for posting about that here? You are coming across as being intentionally misleading.

 

[Classical Motion]

What is the physical definition of energy? Can energy be defined without mathematics?

 

[Classical Motion]

If you want to lighten up a dark electron, just squeeze the crystal.

 

[jhixon]

They can't exist in free space, without a solid material lattice structure. That is clear if you bother to read the actual paper, or even its abstract.

And lots of things are being studied on the space station for lots of reasons. The effects of micro (near zero) gravity are of interest to material scientists for many reasons. But there is no reason to infer that the experiment you mention is looking for dark matter in space because of the Korean experiment used similar words.

So, the real question is what is your purpose for posting about that here? You are coming across as being intentionally misleading.

So you are saying that dark electrons can’t be present without a lattice because that’s the only one we have seen so far? Photons is a quantum of the electromagnetic field, and as such many electromagnetic objects can also cause photons to be locked in a field and not be given off, meaning they are dark electrons. Whether you can see this or not, these are the facts

 

[Classical Motion]

So a photon was an electron? And a photon can become an electron?

 

[Classical Motion]

So the electron is the wave, and the photon is the particle that emits light?

 

[jhixon]

So the electron is the wave, and the photon is the particle that emits light?

Like all other subatomic particles, photons exhibit wave-particle duality, meaning that sometimes they behave as tiny particles and sometimes they act as waves.

 

[Classical Motion]

Ok, I thought I heard something new, sorry for the interruption.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Because this article is talking about antimatter, the answer is yes an electron and an antielectron (called a positron) can annihilate each other and result in the release of 2 photons. And, in the presence of an atomic nucleus, a photon with enough energy can result in the creation of an electron and positron pair. Actual conversions between mass and energy. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

That is not "new" knowledge, in the sense that I learned it while in college long ago.

 

[Inmymind]

Because this article is talking about antimatter, the answer is yes an electron and an antielectron (called a positron) can annihilate each other and result in the release of 2 photons. And, in the presence of an atomic nucleus, a photon with enough energy can result in the creation of an electron and positron pair. Actual conversions between mass and energy. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

That is not "new" knowledge, in the sense that I learned it while in college long ago.

"an electron and an antielectron (called a positron) can annihilate each other and result in the release of 2 photons."

Surely just one photon?, re-combining to form the photon equivalent of that which gave birth?

 

[billslugg]

I believe two .511 MeV photons are required in order to conserve momentum.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Electron–positron annihilation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Inmymind]

Electron–positron annihilation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Unclear Engineer, believe it or not, I was simultaneusly looking at that, and as with Bill I do sincerely respect your postings. It's the 2 photons out of one electron and positron bit I don't get.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

I'm not understanding what you "don't get" about it.

It does happen - I have detected the photons myself in the lab, and there are 2 of them that are detected in coincidence, going pretty much in opposite directions.

The theory behind the 2 is that photons have mass, and thus momentum, so it would not be possible to conserve momentum with only one photon going in one direction. But, exactly how photons are created from subatomic particles and their antiparticles is not really understood. The math for energy and momentum work out quantitatively, with the energy following the famous E = m c^2 equation from relativity theory.

 

[chemicalmicroscopist]

So, how is it that gravimetric chemical analysis agrees with electrochemical and mass spectrometry analyses. Each adds the analyzed mass to 100%. This should not be possible if there is a component that has gravity properties, but lacks electromagnetic properties.
What physics makes this possible? I am only a retired chemist, but this apparent contradiction needs to be addressed.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Aren't each of those analysis techniques empirically calibrated to 100% of what is being measured? That would make them all come out to 100%. If there is something that you cannot detect, then it would not show up in the measurement or the calibration.