Dark Matter...WTH?

Page 17 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</DIV></p><p>Personally I thought that particular post was hillarious. :)&nbsp; I'm over it to be sure.&nbsp; I'm just trying to point out that there is a difference between MACHO types of "dark matter" and the new and improved non baryonic brand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.</DIV></p><p>I suppose I actually disagree with both points.&nbsp; I would say that the lensing data from galaxy collisions does tend to support a "dark matter" theory over a MOND sort of explanation of galaxy rotation.&nbsp; I would also have to assume there is some evidence of high energy electrons based upon the NASA article.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike the folks at NASA I have *no* belief that any of those high energy electrons is in any way related to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>On these points we actually agree. :) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</DIV></p><p>Personally I thought that particular post was hillarious. :)&nbsp; I'm over it to be sure.&nbsp; I'm just trying to point out that there is a difference between MACHO types of "dark matter" and the new and improved non baryonic brand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.</DIV></p><p>I suppose I actually disagree with both points.&nbsp; I would say that the lensing data from galaxy collisions does tend to support a "dark matter" theory over a MOND sort of explanation of galaxy rotation.&nbsp; I would also have to assume there is some evidence of high energy electrons based upon the NASA article.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike the folks at NASA I have *no* belief that any of those high energy electrons is in any way related to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>On these points we actually agree. :) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</DIV></p><p>Personally I thought that particular post was hillarious. :)&nbsp; I'm over it to be sure.&nbsp; I'm just trying to point out that there is a difference between MACHO types of "dark matter" and the new and improved non baryonic brand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.</DIV></p><p>I suppose I actually disagree with both points.&nbsp; I would say that the lensing data from galaxy collisions does tend to support a "dark matter" theory over a MOND sort of explanation of galaxy rotation.&nbsp; I would also have to assume there is some evidence of high energy electrons based upon the NASA article.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike the folks at NASA I have *no* belief that any of those high energy electrons is in any way related to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>On these points we actually agree. :) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]</DIV></p><p>Personally I thought that particular post was hillarious. :)&nbsp; I'm over it to be sure.&nbsp; I'm just trying to point out that there is a difference between MACHO types of "dark matter" and the new and improved non baryonic brand.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.</DIV></p><p>I suppose I actually disagree with both points.&nbsp; I would say that the lensing data from galaxy collisions does tend to support a "dark matter" theory over a MOND sort of explanation of galaxy rotation.&nbsp; I would also have to assume there is some evidence of high energy electrons based upon the NASA article.&nbsp;&nbsp; Unlike the folks at NASA I have *no* belief that any of those high energy electrons is in any way related to "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br /> Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>On these points we actually agree. :) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno.&nbsp; From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation.&nbsp; The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source.&nbsp; One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's hardly surprising since nobody can claim to "understand" something that may not even exist in nature. :)&nbsp; Any such particles may decay into standard forms of matter in milliseconds.&nbsp; It's impossible to be an expert on the "properties" of something that's never been seen in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I&nbsp;mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter.&nbsp; I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. </DIV></p><p>There shouldn't even be a "hoopla" in the first place.&nbsp; SUSY particles do not even exist for all we know.&nbsp; Why anyone would attribute high energy photons or electrons to unevidenced particles is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can evidently entertain any far fetched idea to explain high energy electrons in the universe, well except one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of&nbsp;SUSY particles&nbsp;somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far.</DIV></p><p>Ditto.&nbsp; It would be like taking EU theory, stuffing it into particle physics and ending up with a new "mainstream" brand of particle physics.&nbsp; It's mindboggling that a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory has now been elevated to "mainstream" astronomy theory, but that's where we are today.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just wish it wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno.&nbsp; From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation.&nbsp; The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source.&nbsp; One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's hardly surprising since nobody can claim to "understand" something that may not even exist in nature. :)&nbsp; Any such particles may decay into standard forms of matter in milliseconds.&nbsp; It's impossible to be an expert on the "properties" of something that's never been seen in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I&nbsp;mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter.&nbsp; I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. </DIV></p><p>There shouldn't even be a "hoopla" in the first place.&nbsp; SUSY particles do not even exist for all we know.&nbsp; Why anyone would attribute high energy photons or electrons to unevidenced particles is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can evidently entertain any far fetched idea to explain high energy electrons in the universe, well except one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of&nbsp;SUSY particles&nbsp;somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far.</DIV></p><p>Ditto.&nbsp; It would be like taking EU theory, stuffing it into particle physics and ending up with a new "mainstream" brand of particle physics.&nbsp; It's mindboggling that a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory has now been elevated to "mainstream" astronomy theory, but that's where we are today.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just wish it wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno.&nbsp; From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation.&nbsp; The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source.&nbsp; One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's hardly surprising since nobody can claim to "understand" something that may not even exist in nature. :)&nbsp; Any such particles may decay into standard forms of matter in milliseconds.&nbsp; It's impossible to be an expert on the "properties" of something that's never been seen in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I&nbsp;mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter.&nbsp; I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. </DIV></p><p>There shouldn't even be a "hoopla" in the first place.&nbsp; SUSY particles do not even exist for all we know.&nbsp; Why anyone would attribute high energy photons or electrons to unevidenced particles is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can evidently entertain any far fetched idea to explain high energy electrons in the universe, well except one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of&nbsp;SUSY particles&nbsp;somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far.</DIV></p><p>Ditto.&nbsp; It would be like taking EU theory, stuffing it into particle physics and ending up with a new "mainstream" brand of particle physics.&nbsp; It's mindboggling that a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory has now been elevated to "mainstream" astronomy theory, but that's where we are today.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just wish it wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
M

michaelmozina

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I dunno.&nbsp; From the article and from a link someone provided earlier it appears that researchers found some rather high-energy electrons (70 of them) for which there is no ready good explanation.&nbsp; The have proposed, rather quickly, some candidate ideas for the origin of these electrons, which seen to come from some "nearby" (few thousand light years) source.&nbsp; One of the more far-out thoughts is anihilation of SUSY particles, which I don't claim to understand. </DIV></p><p>Well, that's hardly surprising since nobody can claim to "understand" something that may not even exist in nature. :)&nbsp; Any such particles may decay into standard forms of matter in milliseconds.&nbsp; It's impossible to be an expert on the "properties" of something that's never been seen in controlled experimentation.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have no idea what effect that might have on surrounding normal matter or if it would be likely that there would be any nearby (and here I think I&nbsp;mean nearby in a more conventional sense) matter.&nbsp; I would be surprised if this actually turns out to be related to supersymmetric particles once the hoopla dies down. </DIV></p><p>There shouldn't even be a "hoopla" in the first place.&nbsp; SUSY particles do not even exist for all we know.&nbsp; Why anyone would attribute high energy photons or electrons to unevidenced particles is beyond me.&nbsp;&nbsp; We can evidently entertain any far fetched idea to explain high energy electrons in the universe, well except one.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Nobody has seen any supersymmetric particles yet, and to stumble on a bunch of&nbsp;SUSY particles&nbsp;somewhere nearby (the astronomical nearby again) strikes me as pushing serendipity a bit too far.</DIV></p><p>Ditto.&nbsp; It would be like taking EU theory, stuffing it into particle physics and ending up with a new "mainstream" brand of particle physics.&nbsp; It's mindboggling that a "non standard" brand of particle physics theory has now been elevated to "mainstream" astronomy theory, but that's where we are today.&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> I suspect that someone threw out some rather wild conjecture, fun in the right circles, in front of a reporter when he should have kept his mouth shut -- being interviewed does that to some people. <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>I just wish it wasn't posted on a NASA website.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper.&nbsp; They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The problem here DrRocket is obvious.&nbsp; No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort.</DIV></span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">You asked a big question, so unfortunately a long answer is needed</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">What is obvious is that you don&rsquo;t understand three fundamental things:</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>1)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>&nbsp;</span>The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Pay attention and you might learn something (though from previous experience I am not optimistic):</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">.</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The entire history of physics is marked by one striking element, the incredible power of mathematics and mathematical models in describing nature.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is the job of the research physicist to formulate and validate principles by which the phenomena that are observed in nature can be described and predicted, and that means the invention of mathematical models and the<span>&nbsp; </span>experimental validation that those models are accurate.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">At this time we have two fundamental pillars of physical law.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are general relativity and quantum field theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory includes particle physics and through what is known as the Standard Model provides a fairly good description of the elementary particles that have been detected in experiments.<span>&nbsp; </span>But it is known that our theories are incomplete.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory and general relativity are incompatible.<span>&nbsp; </span>The quantum field theory of the electromagnetic and weak force and the quantum field theory of the strong force are ad hoc and not unified.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts are underway to unify and complete the partial theories that we now have.<span>&nbsp; </span>One aspect of that work is the formulation and development of conjectures that are mathematically consistent and that have some hope of describing what is observed experimentally.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the conjectural theories, with differing levels of completeness, mathematical consistency, and physical predictive power are string theory and its successor M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and supersymmetric quantum field theories.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the mysteries that have been observed in nature for which we have no good explanation are unexplained rotational rates in some galaxies and gravitational lensing for which there does not appear sufficient observed mass, and an apparently accelerating expansion rate for the universe.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts to develop quantum field theories that include general relativity have resulted in hypothetical models in which there are symmetry groups beyond those that have been observed to play a role in established theories of the electroweak quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>That results in predictions of particles, which correspond to symmetries in the conjecture theories, that have not been observed, the so-called supersymmetric or, briefly SUSY, particles.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such particles have not been proved to exist, but if they do exist, some of their properties can be predicted from the quantum field theories on which their possible existence is based.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus one can formulate tests for their existence based on those properties that are more subtle than direct detection.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">It is therefore quite possible to state properties that such particles would have and phenomena that would result from them, if one assumes their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>One can then look for the occurrence of such phenomena in<span>&nbsp; </span>observations from nature, even if the particles themselves have not been directly detected.<span>&nbsp; </span>Detection of the associated phenomena is NOT proof of the existence of such particles, but it is suggestive that they might exist and it is a valid reason to then mount an more intensive search to confirm or deny their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is quite reasonable when confronted with a new an unexpected observation to ask whether SUSY particles might be the source of the observed phenomena.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The methods at work in formulating such hypotheses are mathematical and theoretical.<span>&nbsp; </span>Experimental work is necessary to confirm or deny the basic tenets that form the foundation for such hypotheses, but in conducting research it is proper and necessary for theorists to speculate, based on mathematical models, the potential for conjectural constructs to explain unexpected observations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such conjectures deserve admiration for the creativity required within the confines imposed by scientific rigor, and not denigration based on ignorance of both physics and the methods required to successfully pursue research at the highest levels.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have at our disposal the fruits of the intellectual efforts of many dedicated and talented scientists that have occurred over the last several hundred years.<span>&nbsp; </span>In particular the fundamental physical theories of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provide the best ESTABLISHED understanding that we now have of the workings of the natural world.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Those theories have been proved, through countless controlled laboratory experiments and exquisite measurements in the laboratory of the universe to be very accurate indeed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Within known domains of validity, those theories are proven.<span>&nbsp; </span>Challenges to their accuracy, within those domains are patently absurd.<span>&nbsp; </span>Outside of those domains, we know that the theories are incomplete and require refinement or replacement with new and better theories.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One iron-clad requirement for any new theory is compliance with the correspondence principle.<span>&nbsp; </span>The correspondence principle simply requires that any new theory, in the limit, reduce to the established theories within the known domain of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus general relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low gravitational fields and velocities that are small with respect to the speed of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum mechanics reduces to classical Newtonian mechanics in the limit of macroscopic masses and macroscopic time steps.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Any theory that violates the correspondence principle is to be discarded out of hand as nonsense.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is simply too much carefully developed empirical experimental evidence to do otherwise.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">But so long as the correspondence principle is not violated, any potential explanation for phenomena that are observed but that defy explanation with our established physical principles is a viable candidate-- not necessarily likely or to be favored from the perspective of the allocation of resources to further research, but not to be discarded out of hand.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have discussed the nature of established physics, and hypothetical constructs in research physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Pseudo science is neither.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Pseudo science ranges from obvious fantasy to science that may at one time been a viable research hypothesis, but that has subsequently been shown to either provide incorrect descriptions of observed phenomena or that has been shown to violate the correspondence principle and it contradicted by models based on established physics within the known domain of validity.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Sometimes pseudo science seems a valid explanation for one aspect of observed behavior, but is contradicted by established physics in other regards or by observations of a different nature.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One telltale sign of pseudoscience is a basic premise that an established aspect of physics is simply wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>Examples include numerous proposals that relativity, because it is somewhat non-intuitive, is simply wrong and Einstein was badly mistaken &ndash; or even a fraud.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply ridiculous.<span>&nbsp; </span>More ludicrous proposals have been made that Newtonian mechanics, even in quite ordinary situations, such as determination of planetary orbits is completely wrong.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">More generally any proposals that contradict what can be shown to be logical consequences of well-supported observations and measurements and established physics can be safely consigned to pseudoscience. Thus one can safely question theories as to the universe in the very earliest times (say well under one second), but the basic premise of the big bang itself is well-established unless and until a true revolution in the observational data on which it is based might occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>That situation is perhaps different now than it might have been years ago, when the observational data base was much smaller and less convincing.<span>&nbsp; </span>So what is and is not pseudoscience can change with time.<span>&nbsp; </span>Clinging to discredited ideas, ideas that may have been viable in the past but are not viable in the face of more recent confirmed empirical and theoretical information, is pseudoscientific.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">So you see, even the work of geniuses of the past, applied in the wrong context, can be pseudoscience.<span>&nbsp; </span>An assertion that Newton&rsquo;s mechanics applies to the detailed workings of the atom and that quantum theory should be discarded is pseudoscience, despite the obvious genius of Newton. </font></span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper.&nbsp; They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The problem here DrRocket is obvious.&nbsp; No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort.</DIV></span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">You asked a big question, so unfortunately a long answer is needed</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">What is obvious is that you don&rsquo;t understand three fundamental things:</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>1)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>&nbsp;</span>The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Pay attention and you might learn something (though from previous experience I am not optimistic):</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">.</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The entire history of physics is marked by one striking element, the incredible power of mathematics and mathematical models in describing nature.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is the job of the research physicist to formulate and validate principles by which the phenomena that are observed in nature can be described and predicted, and that means the invention of mathematical models and the<span>&nbsp; </span>experimental validation that those models are accurate.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">At this time we have two fundamental pillars of physical law.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are general relativity and quantum field theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory includes particle physics and through what is known as the Standard Model provides a fairly good description of the elementary particles that have been detected in experiments.<span>&nbsp; </span>But it is known that our theories are incomplete.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory and general relativity are incompatible.<span>&nbsp; </span>The quantum field theory of the electromagnetic and weak force and the quantum field theory of the strong force are ad hoc and not unified.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts are underway to unify and complete the partial theories that we now have.<span>&nbsp; </span>One aspect of that work is the formulation and development of conjectures that are mathematically consistent and that have some hope of describing what is observed experimentally.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the conjectural theories, with differing levels of completeness, mathematical consistency, and physical predictive power are string theory and its successor M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and supersymmetric quantum field theories.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the mysteries that have been observed in nature for which we have no good explanation are unexplained rotational rates in some galaxies and gravitational lensing for which there does not appear sufficient observed mass, and an apparently accelerating expansion rate for the universe.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts to develop quantum field theories that include general relativity have resulted in hypothetical models in which there are symmetry groups beyond those that have been observed to play a role in established theories of the electroweak quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>That results in predictions of particles, which correspond to symmetries in the conjecture theories, that have not been observed, the so-called supersymmetric or, briefly SUSY, particles.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such particles have not been proved to exist, but if they do exist, some of their properties can be predicted from the quantum field theories on which their possible existence is based.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus one can formulate tests for their existence based on those properties that are more subtle than direct detection.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">It is therefore quite possible to state properties that such particles would have and phenomena that would result from them, if one assumes their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>One can then look for the occurrence of such phenomena in<span>&nbsp; </span>observations from nature, even if the particles themselves have not been directly detected.<span>&nbsp; </span>Detection of the associated phenomena is NOT proof of the existence of such particles, but it is suggestive that they might exist and it is a valid reason to then mount an more intensive search to confirm or deny their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is quite reasonable when confronted with a new an unexpected observation to ask whether SUSY particles might be the source of the observed phenomena.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The methods at work in formulating such hypotheses are mathematical and theoretical.<span>&nbsp; </span>Experimental work is necessary to confirm or deny the basic tenets that form the foundation for such hypotheses, but in conducting research it is proper and necessary for theorists to speculate, based on mathematical models, the potential for conjectural constructs to explain unexpected observations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such conjectures deserve admiration for the creativity required within the confines imposed by scientific rigor, and not denigration based on ignorance of both physics and the methods required to successfully pursue research at the highest levels.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have at our disposal the fruits of the intellectual efforts of many dedicated and talented scientists that have occurred over the last several hundred years.<span>&nbsp; </span>In particular the fundamental physical theories of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provide the best ESTABLISHED understanding that we now have of the workings of the natural world.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Those theories have been proved, through countless controlled laboratory experiments and exquisite measurements in the laboratory of the universe to be very accurate indeed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Within known domains of validity, those theories are proven.<span>&nbsp; </span>Challenges to their accuracy, within those domains are patently absurd.<span>&nbsp; </span>Outside of those domains, we know that the theories are incomplete and require refinement or replacement with new and better theories.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One iron-clad requirement for any new theory is compliance with the correspondence principle.<span>&nbsp; </span>The correspondence principle simply requires that any new theory, in the limit, reduce to the established theories within the known domain of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus general relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low gravitational fields and velocities that are small with respect to the speed of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum mechanics reduces to classical Newtonian mechanics in the limit of macroscopic masses and macroscopic time steps.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Any theory that violates the correspondence principle is to be discarded out of hand as nonsense.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is simply too much carefully developed empirical experimental evidence to do otherwise.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">But so long as the correspondence principle is not violated, any potential explanation for phenomena that are observed but that defy explanation with our established physical principles is a viable candidate-- not necessarily likely or to be favored from the perspective of the allocation of resources to further research, but not to be discarded out of hand.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have discussed the nature of established physics, and hypothetical constructs in research physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Pseudo science is neither.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Pseudo science ranges from obvious fantasy to science that may at one time been a viable research hypothesis, but that has subsequently been shown to either provide incorrect descriptions of observed phenomena or that has been shown to violate the correspondence principle and it contradicted by models based on established physics within the known domain of validity.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Sometimes pseudo science seems a valid explanation for one aspect of observed behavior, but is contradicted by established physics in other regards or by observations of a different nature.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One telltale sign of pseudoscience is a basic premise that an established aspect of physics is simply wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>Examples include numerous proposals that relativity, because it is somewhat non-intuitive, is simply wrong and Einstein was badly mistaken &ndash; or even a fraud.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply ridiculous.<span>&nbsp; </span>More ludicrous proposals have been made that Newtonian mechanics, even in quite ordinary situations, such as determination of planetary orbits is completely wrong.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">More generally any proposals that contradict what can be shown to be logical consequences of well-supported observations and measurements and established physics can be safely consigned to pseudoscience. Thus one can safely question theories as to the universe in the very earliest times (say well under one second), but the basic premise of the big bang itself is well-established unless and until a true revolution in the observational data on which it is based might occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>That situation is perhaps different now than it might have been years ago, when the observational data base was much smaller and less convincing.<span>&nbsp; </span>So what is and is not pseudoscience can change with time.<span>&nbsp; </span>Clinging to discredited ideas, ideas that may have been viable in the past but are not viable in the face of more recent confirmed empirical and theoretical information, is pseudoscientific.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">So you see, even the work of geniuses of the past, applied in the wrong context, can be pseudoscience.<span>&nbsp; </span>An assertion that Newton&rsquo;s mechanics applies to the detailed workings of the atom and that quantum theory should be discarded is pseudoscience, despite the obvious genius of Newton. </font></span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper.&nbsp; They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The problem here DrRocket is obvious.&nbsp; No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort.</DIV></span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">You asked a big question, so unfortunately a long answer is needed</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">What is obvious is that you don&rsquo;t understand three fundamental things:</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>1)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>&nbsp;</span>The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Pay attention and you might learn something (though from previous experience I am not optimistic):</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">.</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The entire history of physics is marked by one striking element, the incredible power of mathematics and mathematical models in describing nature.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is the job of the research physicist to formulate and validate principles by which the phenomena that are observed in nature can be described and predicted, and that means the invention of mathematical models and the<span>&nbsp; </span>experimental validation that those models are accurate.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">At this time we have two fundamental pillars of physical law.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are general relativity and quantum field theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory includes particle physics and through what is known as the Standard Model provides a fairly good description of the elementary particles that have been detected in experiments.<span>&nbsp; </span>But it is known that our theories are incomplete.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory and general relativity are incompatible.<span>&nbsp; </span>The quantum field theory of the electromagnetic and weak force and the quantum field theory of the strong force are ad hoc and not unified.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts are underway to unify and complete the partial theories that we now have.<span>&nbsp; </span>One aspect of that work is the formulation and development of conjectures that are mathematically consistent and that have some hope of describing what is observed experimentally.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the conjectural theories, with differing levels of completeness, mathematical consistency, and physical predictive power are string theory and its successor M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and supersymmetric quantum field theories.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the mysteries that have been observed in nature for which we have no good explanation are unexplained rotational rates in some galaxies and gravitational lensing for which there does not appear sufficient observed mass, and an apparently accelerating expansion rate for the universe.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts to develop quantum field theories that include general relativity have resulted in hypothetical models in which there are symmetry groups beyond those that have been observed to play a role in established theories of the electroweak quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>That results in predictions of particles, which correspond to symmetries in the conjecture theories, that have not been observed, the so-called supersymmetric or, briefly SUSY, particles.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such particles have not been proved to exist, but if they do exist, some of their properties can be predicted from the quantum field theories on which their possible existence is based.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus one can formulate tests for their existence based on those properties that are more subtle than direct detection.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">It is therefore quite possible to state properties that such particles would have and phenomena that would result from them, if one assumes their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>One can then look for the occurrence of such phenomena in<span>&nbsp; </span>observations from nature, even if the particles themselves have not been directly detected.<span>&nbsp; </span>Detection of the associated phenomena is NOT proof of the existence of such particles, but it is suggestive that they might exist and it is a valid reason to then mount an more intensive search to confirm or deny their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is quite reasonable when confronted with a new an unexpected observation to ask whether SUSY particles might be the source of the observed phenomena.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The methods at work in formulating such hypotheses are mathematical and theoretical.<span>&nbsp; </span>Experimental work is necessary to confirm or deny the basic tenets that form the foundation for such hypotheses, but in conducting research it is proper and necessary for theorists to speculate, based on mathematical models, the potential for conjectural constructs to explain unexpected observations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such conjectures deserve admiration for the creativity required within the confines imposed by scientific rigor, and not denigration based on ignorance of both physics and the methods required to successfully pursue research at the highest levels.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have at our disposal the fruits of the intellectual efforts of many dedicated and talented scientists that have occurred over the last several hundred years.<span>&nbsp; </span>In particular the fundamental physical theories of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provide the best ESTABLISHED understanding that we now have of the workings of the natural world.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Those theories have been proved, through countless controlled laboratory experiments and exquisite measurements in the laboratory of the universe to be very accurate indeed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Within known domains of validity, those theories are proven.<span>&nbsp; </span>Challenges to their accuracy, within those domains are patently absurd.<span>&nbsp; </span>Outside of those domains, we know that the theories are incomplete and require refinement or replacement with new and better theories.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One iron-clad requirement for any new theory is compliance with the correspondence principle.<span>&nbsp; </span>The correspondence principle simply requires that any new theory, in the limit, reduce to the established theories within the known domain of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus general relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low gravitational fields and velocities that are small with respect to the speed of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum mechanics reduces to classical Newtonian mechanics in the limit of macroscopic masses and macroscopic time steps.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Any theory that violates the correspondence principle is to be discarded out of hand as nonsense.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is simply too much carefully developed empirical experimental evidence to do otherwise.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">But so long as the correspondence principle is not violated, any potential explanation for phenomena that are observed but that defy explanation with our established physical principles is a viable candidate-- not necessarily likely or to be favored from the perspective of the allocation of resources to further research, but not to be discarded out of hand.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have discussed the nature of established physics, and hypothetical constructs in research physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Pseudo science is neither.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Pseudo science ranges from obvious fantasy to science that may at one time been a viable research hypothesis, but that has subsequently been shown to either provide incorrect descriptions of observed phenomena or that has been shown to violate the correspondence principle and it contradicted by models based on established physics within the known domain of validity.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Sometimes pseudo science seems a valid explanation for one aspect of observed behavior, but is contradicted by established physics in other regards or by observations of a different nature.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One telltale sign of pseudoscience is a basic premise that an established aspect of physics is simply wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>Examples include numerous proposals that relativity, because it is somewhat non-intuitive, is simply wrong and Einstein was badly mistaken &ndash; or even a fraud.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply ridiculous.<span>&nbsp; </span>More ludicrous proposals have been made that Newtonian mechanics, even in quite ordinary situations, such as determination of planetary orbits is completely wrong.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">More generally any proposals that contradict what can be shown to be logical consequences of well-supported observations and measurements and established physics can be safely consigned to pseudoscience. Thus one can safely question theories as to the universe in the very earliest times (say well under one second), but the basic premise of the big bang itself is well-established unless and until a true revolution in the observational data on which it is based might occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>That situation is perhaps different now than it might have been years ago, when the observational data base was much smaller and less convincing.<span>&nbsp; </span>So what is and is not pseudoscience can change with time.<span>&nbsp; </span>Clinging to discredited ideas, ideas that may have been viable in the past but are not viable in the face of more recent confirmed empirical and theoretical information, is pseudoscientific.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">So you see, even the work of geniuses of the past, applied in the wrong context, can be pseudoscience.<span>&nbsp; </span>An assertion that Newton&rsquo;s mechanics applies to the detailed workings of the atom and that quantum theory should be discarded is pseudoscience, despite the obvious genius of Newton. </font></span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="1"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Please explain to me the difference between "Science" and "pseudoscience" and how these definitions apply to presumed non baryonic forms of matter?</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">I'd love to hear you justify any of these presumed "properties" being assinged to "dark matter" in paper after paper.&nbsp; They even profess to "know" and to be able to "calculate" the percentage of "dark matter" to "baryonic matter" in the galaxy, as though "dark matter" is someone *necessarily* a new and unique form of matter that is invisible to light, etc.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The problem here DrRocket is obvious.&nbsp; No non baryonic forms of "dark matter" have been shown to exist in nature, and yet astronomers the world over claim that "dark matter" is somehow a "unique" form of matter with all sorts of "properties" in the absense of any controlled testing of any sort.</DIV></span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">You asked a big question, so unfortunately a long answer is needed</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">What is obvious is that you don&rsquo;t understand three fundamental things:</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>1)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>&nbsp;</span>The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>2)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><span>3)<span style="font:7pt'TimesNewRoman'">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">Pay attention and you might learn something (though from previous experience I am not optimistic):</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The nature and methods of research and inquiry in theoretical physics</span></u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">.</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The entire history of physics is marked by one striking element, the incredible power of mathematics and mathematical models in describing nature.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is the job of the research physicist to formulate and validate principles by which the phenomena that are observed in nature can be described and predicted, and that means the invention of mathematical models and the<span>&nbsp; </span>experimental validation that those models are accurate.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">At this time we have two fundamental pillars of physical law.<span>&nbsp; </span>They are general relativity and quantum field theory.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory includes particle physics and through what is known as the Standard Model provides a fairly good description of the elementary particles that have been detected in experiments.<span>&nbsp; </span>But it is known that our theories are incomplete.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum field theory and general relativity are incompatible.<span>&nbsp; </span>The quantum field theory of the electromagnetic and weak force and the quantum field theory of the strong force are ad hoc and not unified.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts are underway to unify and complete the partial theories that we now have.<span>&nbsp; </span>One aspect of that work is the formulation and development of conjectures that are mathematically consistent and that have some hope of describing what is observed experimentally.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the conjectural theories, with differing levels of completeness, mathematical consistency, and physical predictive power are string theory and its successor M-theory, loop quantum gravity, and supersymmetric quantum field theories.<span>&nbsp; </span>Among the mysteries that have been observed in nature for which we have no good explanation are unexplained rotational rates in some galaxies and gravitational lensing for which there does not appear sufficient observed mass, and an apparently accelerating expansion rate for the universe.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Attempts to develop quantum field theories that include general relativity have resulted in hypothetical models in which there are symmetry groups beyond those that have been observed to play a role in established theories of the electroweak quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics.<span>&nbsp; </span>That results in predictions of particles, which correspond to symmetries in the conjecture theories, that have not been observed, the so-called supersymmetric or, briefly SUSY, particles.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such particles have not been proved to exist, but if they do exist, some of their properties can be predicted from the quantum field theories on which their possible existence is based.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus one can formulate tests for their existence based on those properties that are more subtle than direct detection.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">It is therefore quite possible to state properties that such particles would have and phenomena that would result from them, if one assumes their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>One can then look for the occurrence of such phenomena in<span>&nbsp; </span>observations from nature, even if the particles themselves have not been directly detected.<span>&nbsp; </span>Detection of the associated phenomena is NOT proof of the existence of such particles, but it is suggestive that they might exist and it is a valid reason to then mount an more intensive search to confirm or deny their existence.<span>&nbsp; </span>It is quite reasonable when confronted with a new an unexpected observation to ask whether SUSY particles might be the source of the observed phenomena.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">The methods at work in formulating such hypotheses are mathematical and theoretical.<span>&nbsp; </span>Experimental work is necessary to confirm or deny the basic tenets that form the foundation for such hypotheses, but in conducting research it is proper and necessary for theorists to speculate, based on mathematical models, the potential for conjectural constructs to explain unexpected observations.<span>&nbsp; </span>Such conjectures deserve admiration for the creativity required within the confines imposed by scientific rigor, and not denigration based on ignorance of both physics and the methods required to successfully pursue research at the highest levels.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The power and limitations of established physics</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have at our disposal the fruits of the intellectual efforts of many dedicated and talented scientists that have occurred over the last several hundred years.<span>&nbsp; </span>In particular the fundamental physical theories of classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics, special and general relativity, quantum electrodynamics, the electroweak theory and quantum chromodynamics provide the best ESTABLISHED understanding that we now have of the workings of the natural world.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Those theories have been proved, through countless controlled laboratory experiments and exquisite measurements in the laboratory of the universe to be very accurate indeed.<span>&nbsp; </span>Within known domains of validity, those theories are proven.<span>&nbsp; </span>Challenges to their accuracy, within those domains are patently absurd.<span>&nbsp; </span>Outside of those domains, we know that the theories are incomplete and require refinement or replacement with new and better theories.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One iron-clad requirement for any new theory is compliance with the correspondence principle.<span>&nbsp; </span>The correspondence principle simply requires that any new theory, in the limit, reduce to the established theories within the known domain of validity.<span>&nbsp; </span>Thus general relativity reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of low gravitational fields and velocities that are small with respect to the speed of light.<span>&nbsp; </span>Quantum mechanics reduces to classical Newtonian mechanics in the limit of macroscopic masses and macroscopic time steps.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Any theory that violates the correspondence principle is to be discarded out of hand as nonsense.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is simply too much carefully developed empirical experimental evidence to do otherwise.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">But so long as the correspondence principle is not violated, any potential explanation for phenomena that are observed but that defy explanation with our established physical principles is a viable candidate-- not necessarily likely or to be favored from the perspective of the allocation of resources to further research, but not to be discarded out of hand.</font></span></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span><u><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">The difference among established physics, hypothetical constructs associated with research topics, and pseudo science</span></u></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">We have discussed the nature of established physics, and hypothetical constructs in research physics.<span>&nbsp; </span>Pseudo science is neither.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Pseudo science ranges from obvious fantasy to science that may at one time been a viable research hypothesis, but that has subsequently been shown to either provide incorrect descriptions of observed phenomena or that has been shown to violate the correspondence principle and it contradicted by models based on established physics within the known domain of validity.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">Sometimes pseudo science seems a valid explanation for one aspect of observed behavior, but is contradicted by established physics in other regards or by observations of a different nature.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">One telltale sign of pseudoscience is a basic premise that an established aspect of physics is simply wrong.<span>&nbsp; </span>Examples include numerous proposals that relativity, because it is somewhat non-intuitive, is simply wrong and Einstein was badly mistaken &ndash; or even a fraud.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is simply ridiculous.<span>&nbsp; </span>More ludicrous proposals have been made that Newtonian mechanics, even in quite ordinary situations, such as determination of planetary orbits is completely wrong.</font></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">More generally any proposals that contradict what can be shown to be logical consequences of well-supported observations and measurements and established physics can be safely consigned to pseudoscience. Thus one can safely question theories as to the universe in the very earliest times (say well under one second), but the basic premise of the big bang itself is well-established unless and until a true revolution in the observational data on which it is based might occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>That situation is perhaps different now than it might have been years ago, when the observational data base was much smaller and less convincing.<span>&nbsp; </span>So what is and is not pseudoscience can change with time.<span>&nbsp; </span>Clinging to discredited ideas, ideas that may have been viable in the past but are not viable in the face of more recent confirmed empirical and theoretical information, is pseudoscientific.</span><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</span></font></span></p><p><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:'Verdana','sans-serif'"><span style="font-size:8pt;font-family:'Arial','sans-serif'"><font size="2">So you see, even the work of geniuses of the past, applied in the wrong context, can be pseudoscience.<span>&nbsp; </span>An assertion that Newton&rsquo;s mechanics applies to the detailed workings of the atom and that quantum theory should be discarded is pseudoscience, despite the obvious genius of Newton. </font></span></span></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>From what I see (and I've just started to scan the issue of nature that this article is in) The PAMELA collaberation spotted an excess of high energy positrons at an increasing rate up too 110 Gev, although they have not yet reported above that level.</p><p>ATIC detected an excess between 300 and 600 Gev with&nbsp;expected rates above and below.</p><p>Those are the facts, anything else is speculation.</p><p>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</p><p>"By the spring of 2009, we'll have a lot more information", says Aldo Morselli, a particle physicist from the Itialian National Institute of Nuclear Physics.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>From what I see (and I've just started to scan the issue of nature that this article is in) The PAMELA collaberation spotted an excess of high energy positrons at an increasing rate up too 110 Gev, although they have not yet reported above that level.</p><p>ATIC detected an excess between 300 and 600 Gev with&nbsp;expected rates above and below.</p><p>Those are the facts, anything else is speculation.</p><p>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</p><p>"By the spring of 2009, we'll have a lot more information", says Aldo Morselli, a particle physicist from the Itialian National Institute of Nuclear Physics.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>From what I see (and I've just started to scan the issue of nature that this article is in) The PAMELA collaberation spotted an excess of high energy positrons at an increasing rate up too 110 Gev, although they have not yet reported above that level.</p><p>ATIC detected an excess between 300 and 600 Gev with&nbsp;expected rates above and below.</p><p>Those are the facts, anything else is speculation.</p><p>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</p><p>"By the spring of 2009, we'll have a lot more information", says Aldo Morselli, a particle physicist from the Itialian National Institute of Nuclear Physics.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>[I feel like someone beat me with a tire-iron.&nbsp; Again, sorry for the irrational screed last evening]There is not much evidence for much of anything, wrt Dark Matter, but there is equally no evidence for "billion volt electrons" either.&nbsp; Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't there be extreme exitation of surrounding "normal" matter if this was present?&nbsp; There is not such evidence present.&nbsp; I would say, based on that, this is not a correct hypothesis. <br />Posted by yevaud</DIV></p><p>From what I see (and I've just started to scan the issue of nature that this article is in) The PAMELA collaberation spotted an excess of high energy positrons at an increasing rate up too 110 Gev, although they have not yet reported above that level.</p><p>ATIC detected an excess between 300 and 600 Gev with&nbsp;expected rates above and below.</p><p>Those are the facts, anything else is speculation.</p><p>SWIFT is also able to detect these particles and eneries, as well as potential gamma rays from possible dark matter annihilation.</p><p>"By the spring of 2009, we'll have a lot more information", says Aldo Morselli, a particle physicist from the Itialian National Institute of Nuclear Physics.</p><p>MW</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>
?!?!?!?No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp;
Click to expand...
</p><p>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.</p><p>You just bash averybody randomly.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>
?!?!?!?No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp;
Click to expand...
</p><p>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.</p><p>You just bash averybody randomly.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>
?!?!?!?No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp;
Click to expand...
</p><p>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.</p><p>You just bash averybody randomly.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
<p>
?!?!?!?No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp;
Click to expand...
</p><p>This is more baiting on your part. NASA made no such claim, they just launch and operate the balloon and instruments. The suggestion of possible Dark Matter sources was a speculation by the ATIC collaberation, headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.</p><p>You just bash averybody randomly.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp; Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter".&nbsp; It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter".&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;</p><p>Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp; Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter".&nbsp; It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter".&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;</p><p>Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp; Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter".&nbsp; It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter".&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;</p><p>Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

UFmbutler

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I simply noted that NASA just *assumed* yet one more unevidenced "property" of "dark matter".&nbsp; Holy Cow. I've gone to incredible lengths to avoid the "forbidden" topic and focus on specific issues related to "dark matter".&nbsp; It's not my fault they found high energy electrons and claimed they too were another perfectly visible emission of something they call "dark matter".&nbsp;&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>Michael, for someone who has published papers in the past in journals(regardless of how prestigious they may or may not be), I have to question whether you've actually read any.&nbsp; Just as in the EU thread, you latch on to a single interpretation of a journalist's interpretation of the paper and base your entire argument upon it(don't say you aren't because you've mentioned this in almost every post).&nbsp; First of all, one author or one observer is not representative of NASA, much like I couldn't speak for NASA when I worked there.&nbsp; Second, and more importantly, they made no such claim.&nbsp; It was a SUGGESTION.&nbsp; They did not know where these electrons came from...they had a good idea that it was by more conventional sources(i.e. PWNe), but couldn't rule out more theoretical concepts such as dark matter.&nbsp; Not being able to rule something out is not equivalent to supporting it.&nbsp; You are ignoring all the other possible sources that the article mentions. &nbsp;</p><p>Stop reading press releases and start reading papers if you ever want to be respected on an academic level. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>headed by John Wefel, a physicist at LSU in Baton Rouge.You just bash averybody randomly. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>GEAUX Tigers !</p><p><br /><img src="http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:O1WTUpWUazgJ::http://www.louisianagreetings.com/Images/Notecard%2520Details/GNC_6L.jpg" alt="" width="112" height="85" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>To the young whippesnapper in Gator land -- OK I admit, the boys are having a bad year.&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Snowball Solar System
Two Epochs of Baryonic Dark Matter, With Free-Floating Super-Puff-like Planets as the Second and Present Epoch
Replies
0
Views
4K
Cosmology
Snowball Solar System
Snowball Solar System
B
30 Unique Evidences proving beyond reasonable doubt that Dark Matter Annihilates & is Neutrinos Entirely, & Galaxies Emerge from Population III Stars
Replies
1
Views
363
Cosmology
DrRaviSharma
DrRaviSharma
Rorisang
Dark Matter Controversy: Unraveling the Cosmic Enigma
Replies
24
Views
5K
Our Solar System
magnoflux
M
mpc755
Dark matter is the spacetime fabric
Replies
6
Views
6K
Cosmology
DrRaviSharma
DrRaviSharma
M
Dark Matter vs MOND vs Gravity by EM waves
Replies
19
Views
8K
Cosmology
Atlan0001
A

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom