Dark Matter — You’re Out !
Gigantic pillars of Big Bang are creaking and starting to collapse like colossal dominoes. These are tumultuous times in Cosmology. Recently I described how the “The voice you hear getting louder is Brünnhilde practicing Götterdämmerung” in describing the fruitless and essentially completed search for Higgs Bosons. (Update: See “Did CERN Find a Higgs ? Well not quite. But they probably found a New Particle ! and extended their funding for years“) Well, now the hypothesis called “Dark Matter” is facing a similar fate. What a contrast with a mere five years ago when both Dark Matter and Higgs Bosons were expected to be found rapidly. Continue reading
Posted in Big Bang Models, Dark, Dark Matter, Observations Change Ideas, Static Models, Structure, UnObserved
Tagged Charles Gallo, Dark Matter, galaxy rotation, Higgs Bosons, Moni Bidin, Mysterious Dark Matter
Great Ideas Invited
This is an invitation for you to submit your own Cosmology hypotheses for publication on this website.
You should get thoughtful responses from the several thousand readers of this website.
Spin-Charge Separation Graph
Credit: Nature, Schlappa et al
Amazing news: Researchers in Switzerland have separated an Electron into two smaller quasi-particles – a “Spinon” and an “Orbiton;” meaning they have physically separated the spin and the orbit properties of an Electron.
Until now, standard physics generally accepted that an Electron was a fundamental particle – that it was not made of smaller components.
However, as early as 1980 theorists had predicted an electron could be made of three smaller pieces: A “Spinon” (providing spin), an “Orbiton” (providing the orbit) and a “Holon” (carrying the charge).
(c) Copyright 2012-2016 David Dilworth
Two bodies orbiting a common “Barycenter”
Many science afficianadoes assume we can accurately predict the future locations of planets in our solar system.
It appears as though our many planets make completely predictable orbits . . . and Kepler figured out that orbital motion is simply ellipses – right ?
Well, hang on just a moment please.
Even though great minds like Kepler, Poincaire and Euler have worked intensely for centuries on this problem in Celestial Mechanics, as much as Mathematicians would like you believe Planet orbital motion can be described perfectly with some equation(s) – well, sorry, it can’t. Not kidding.
We’ve known for centuries, thanks to Kepler, planet orbits are not perfect circles. Well, contrary to what you learned in college physics, it turns out they aren’t perfect ellipses either and that’s also been known for a centuries.
We can fairly reliably estimate the motion of two bodies orbiting each other.
Posted in Basic Astrophysics, Basic Science, Dynamics, Fun, Mechanics, Structure
Tagged Barycenter, Cosmology Standard, Einstein General Relativity, Kepler, Mercury Precession, Mercury's Perihelion, Newtonian Mechanics, Perturbation theory, predictable orbits, Standard Model, Three-body, two-body
It is not always made clear that astronomical images are altered or “cleaned-up” before we see them. You know the colors of gasses and dust are “adjusted” so we can more easily see different astrophysical phenomena. You might be surprised to learn everything that goes into making the celestial beautiful.
Astronomical Image Enhancement Engineer Brant Widgeon explaining . . .
Well, here’s an interview with an Astronomical Image Enhancement engineer, Brant Widgeon, who describes one of the lesser known phenomena that interferes with so many space photographs.
Cherenkov Radiation Credit: Wikipedia
A recent criticism of the apparently Faster-than-light (FTL) Neutrinos inspiring a lot of discussion is the claim that if Neutrinos are going FTL – they must cause Cherenkov radiation.
Why? That doesn’t make sense. And its never been observed so how would anyone test that?
Cherenkov Radiation Requires Charged Particles – But Neutrinos Have No Charge
The beautiful blue-violet glow of Cherenkov Radiation is only caused by charged particles, primarily electrons.
I’m Not Sure about the Uncertainty Principle
(c) Copyright 2011-2017 David Dilworth
Apple Bitten: courtesy Wikimedia
It is difficult to test the flavor of an apple without biting it or taking some sample out of it. You or I can test or measure its flavor by taking a bite of it or taking a small piece for examination. Either method of testing changes the apple irreversibly. Testing which harms or changes the tested phenomena or materials is called “Destructive Testing.”
When I take a photograph inside a building, where the light is dimmer, I usually use a flash.
Using a flash intentionally affects the subject of the photograph in a demonstrable way (a flash changes how someone looks in a photograph), and also in an unintended way — some people react to a strong flash of light in their eyes.
By contrast – photography without a flash does not affect the “model,” at least not with light.
Similarly, while X-rays show us the inner workings of some things, they also harm living photography subjects by damaging the DNA of living tissue.
Regarding the potentially Faster than light Neutrinos, it is vital to realize that only about one (1) Neutrino is detected by Italy’s OPERA every hour; that’s one Neutrino per hour.
Compare that to how every square centimeter on Earth (facing the Sun) encounters some 65 billion solar neutrinos per second.
When that single neutrino hits in Italy, its timed arrival is associated (extrapolated back) to a recorded proton pulse at CERN by using the time it would take for a photon to travel the same distance.
Here’s a very clear article in (relatively) plain English explaining problems with the Cosmological Inflation conjecture by Sean Carroll in Discovery Magazine.
While I disagree with the author’s conclusion that the final ingredients of a “settled” cosmology hypothesis will include Inflation, this article is very well summarized, explained and organized.
This began as a simple question, but it has intrigued enough people that I decided to feature it as an article and expand it so we can have some fun.
“I have heard people say that there are more stars in the universe than there are the grains of sand ‘on the beach.’
What size is the beach and are the grains of sand coarse or fine? Or does the saying go “all the grains of sand on all the world’s beaches,” something I simply can’t believe to be true.”
Carmel (Charmel) Beach has many more grains of sand than our Milky Way has Stars
You and I will work through to get an answer, but be warned — There will never be a definitive, conclusive, absolute, precise or final answer to this question.
For either counting stars or sand grains — there simply is no measurement, or accurate calculation or mathematical proof or method of counting – nor will one ever conceivably exist.
Its even worse than that — we can’t even get approximate numbers with much confidence.
We can only roughly estimate the number of stars in our own galaxy. Estimates easily vary by 150 times (more than two orders of magnitude) and estimates of the number of grains of beach sand are even worse.
Posted in Basic Science, Education, Fun
Tagged Carmel Bays, Carmel Beach, Estimating, orders of magnitude, Sand, Scientific Wild Ass Guess, sextillion, Stars, Universe
Muon vs Electron Neutrino Decay Tracks
Credit: Duke U. Saturday Academy
Neutrinos are fundamental particles, more closely related to Electrons than Neutrons because they are not made up of smaller particles (Neutrons are made up of 3 Quarks).
Here are some odd things about Neutrinos.
1. All three flavors (types) of Neutrinos have zero electric charge making them beyond invisible; nearly impossible to detect. They are only affected by the Weak force and Gravity; both effects are extremely difficult to detect at the atomic scale.
What makes Neutrinos unique among particles is that they seem to change structure or “flavor” (called oscillation) . . . in very short distances. (Kind of like the Transformer toys – except instead of changing shape, Neutrinos seem to change mass ! – both up and down – which of course violates the bedrock principle of conservation of mass-energy.)
Posted in Basic Science, Definitions, Particles
Tagged electron neutrino, helicity, Light Speed, Majorana particles, muon neutrino, Only one Neutrino Flavor, Space-based Neutrinos, tau neutrino, Vanilla Neutrino
Update: Added Glossary and Links to: the original paper, video talk, OPERA website; and step by step explanation of experiment details.
Neutrino Beam Path
While working on another problem, a team of physics researchers at CERN and the Gran Sasso Laboratory in central Italy found a potentially revolutionary result seven months
three years ago.
They have spent the subsequent seven months
three years quietly verifying – that muon Neutrino particles seem to be traveling faster than the speed of light, called Superluminal Motion.
Prof. Dr. Antonio Ereditato, OPERA Spokesman
(A very happy) Team spokesman Prof. Dr. Antonio Ereditato said “We have high confidence in our results. We have checked and rechecked for anything that could have distorted our measurements but we found nothing,” he said. “We now want colleagues to check them independently.” (Quote credit: Reuters reporter Robert Evans)
Posted in Basic Science, Experiments, Particles
Tagged Causality Violation, CERN, General Relativity, Gran Sasso Laboratory, Italy, Neutrino, OPERA, Pions, Special Relativity, Superluminal, Tau-Leptons
Dark Matter Illuminated?
NewScientist reports that “NASA’s FERMI satellite has confirmed a previous hint that there is more antimatter than expected coming from space. The bad news is that the result strongly almost certainly rules out Dark Matter as the source.”
Posted in Basic Science, Big Bang Models, Dark, Dark Matter, Experiments, Models, News, Particles, UnObserved
Tagged DAMA, Dark Matter, galaxy rotation, Gran Sasso
The voice you hear getting louder is Brünnhilde practicing Götterdämmerung. Thats because the search is all but over for “the most sought-after particle in modern physics” – the Higgs Boson.
Update: In March 2013, while there are a few loose ends, it appears that a Higgs Boson is detected. See “Closing in on Higgs Boson Certainty, But “Standard Model Higgs” Remains Distant“.
The most expensive science experiment in history, the Large Hadron Collider, has failed to find the Higgs Boson which is required for Big Bang and Expanding Universe ideas (as well as its role as a key component of particle physics “Standard Model“).
CERN Higgs Boson Experiment — Artist’s Simulation
Credit: Lucas Taylor, Wikipedia
The hypothesized particle was not (yet) found within the wide range of values for mass where it needed to show up.
(c) Copyright 2011 David j Dilworth
Imagine resolving details of nearby stars and their planets.
Sub-nano-arc second resolution should be possible with this proposal for a telescope that is composed of a set of three sets of two (six total) lens-sensor spacecraft systems that send images and data back to Earth from three baselines that can begin sending ground breaking data when the spacecraft are separated by 10 times Earth’s diameter. The baselines of the six spacecraft grow over some 100 to 200 years to about 100 billion miles (roughly 1100 AU, 2 hundredths of a light year or 160 terameters).
Six Directions for Six SpaceCraft
Three pairs of identical telescopes are launched in six X,Y,Z axis directions to escape our Solar System and return images from each of the three paired baselines. One axis is intended to be perpendicular to our galactic plane.
Posted in Basic Science, Experiments, Fun, Proposal
Tagged HelioSphere, IR, MagnetoPause, Solar Map, Sub-nano-arc second resolution, UV, VLBA, Voyager spacecraft
I just found a critique by Ethan Siegel implying that there is some flaw in my article explaining Big Bang’s lack of an adequate scientific definition and hypothesis (titled “International Astronomical Union has no Definition for Big Bang“).
While flattering (I’ve made mistakes before and far prefer to get them corrected quickly), the critique fails to identify any flaws in my article and contains a number of incorrect or misleading assertions — including the false claim that the complete quote by Professor Peebles is somehow out of context.
It also spends most of its extensive effort with an elaborate distraction where it tries but falls short of describing a complete hypothesis for Big Bang. Since the article is copied on other blogs, its errors need correcting. So, here are some responses to the dispute article’s ideas and quotes.
Here’s a fun article on possible identification of a new particle.
FermiLab - Illinois
Update (July 2011): Unfortunately, this exciting potential evaporated under more rigorous scrutiny. But, that’s exactly the way science is supposed to work. We are supposed to abandon even our most treasured concepts when data can not support it, and embrace data even when it contradicts our wishes about natural phenomena.
Update (June 2011): Rats – verification by a second team failed; it shows no similar “bump” meaning that hope for the alleged new particle is evaporating, but not disappeared. Nevertheless, the amusing term remains :-)
It describes how the evidence is getting stronger – and we may have a new particle confirmed soon.
Ever want to explore the whole night sky ?
Whole Night Sky
Here you go thanks to Nick Risinger—