Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought

So my issue with most of the alternative is that most are argued from an assumption that the current models are absolutely 100% wrong. THEN go on to provide zero evidence to assert their own alternative model is better or correct. Most of the time they do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny what so ever.

I already said the standard model is not correct, but it is very damn good. Its predictive power is not the same, as a model and a standing point you are able to predict particle interactions for thousands of different channels and come out with an answer experimentally to a high degree of observation. We are weeding out the few that don't work so to speak.

Once again it is also incorrect to assume that we dispose of theories as pseudoscience a priori, because most of the ones that we do dispose of, are so mind bogglingly easy to point enormous flaws in and in consistencies in observation and theory that those theories barely actually count as theories. There are also other theories that ramble on (seen some in this thread) so much in incoherent assumptions that have no basis in reality other than "It looks like something else so lets assume it" And then go off on huge ramblings that leave you thinking... 'did this person take a look at any of the observational science in the last 2 centuries before postulating this?'

We seem to throw some out out of hand because we have already spent time thinking about the problems they have, and most often than not, their authors do not wish to defend themselves, they place the burden of proof on others, which is NOT how the system works

originally posted by: ErosA433

ImaFungi gravitational waves I don't think can account for it at least not how it is postulated, since what we experience is a slight expansion and contraction of spacetime rather than a jolt of gravitation.

I am assuming you missed my actual explanation prior in this thread but that is ok.

How I am postulating it is;

According to general relativity, there must be a material/energy dense medium (which can be referred to as the gravity field) that is responsible for being altered in a very non trivial way in the presence of mass.

Mainly the gravity we are concerned with, is in relation to a starting mass, say the earth. The earth effects, i believe in some way displaces, the supposedly (with ~good reason) universally pervading gravity field. So that if the gravity field has an average energy density away from all mass (this is so important to retain, that the gravity field must be an extremely greater than 0 material/energy value, on its own...that already can be a major source of dark matter...if funnily, the gravity field itself produces gravity on itself........uh oh.... but anyway you will see regardless, that what i am trying to say depends on this material, valuable, substantial nature of gravity field).

So the earth is traveling through space, constantly touching new portions of the gravity field (sure, debatable...) that means it is effecting new portions of the gravity field. First with gravity we are concerned with the earthly effect of this. The earth interacting with the gravity field, I presume, displacing its local energy density, so that masses now are compelled towards the center of displacement. But where my theory of dark matter comes in, is the yang to the ying of objects falling towards earth. Is, gravity field being pushed/displaced away from earth.

Maybe its easier to argue this, using the galaxy as the example, because that is one of the big keys in dark matter anyway.

well its the same thing, imagine the entire galaxy as the earth, or just dont, imagine the entire galaxy as the galaxy. it as a relative object, or relatively tight knit system of objects, is collectively displacing lots of gravity field...obviously this is how it retains its nature as a system. So we assume the energy density of gravity field is lesser closer to earth as it is further from earth, unless that further from earth is towards the sun, in which we would find the energy density even lesser. So, super massive black hole at the center...well this gets tricky, and I am positive I can at another time in discussion provide adequate excuses as to why i am arguing all the gravity field is vacated from inside the galaxy compared to beyond its edges, when the black hole at center is known to be an extreme gravitational object, just quickly i suppose i can say it is probably that the gravity field cannot completely be rid of, so all the mass of the galaxy swirling around a common center point, just causes all the gravity field to wave and swirl at a common center, and this gets twisty, and energetic, and extremely extreme.

So, anyway. the lack of gravity field in proximity to a mass, must be equaled in the then subsequent addition of gravity field away from the mass. Because a galaxy is a system of much mass, relative to average relatably scalable spaces between galaxies, this means less local energy density in relation to the masses, obviously as that is what a main aspect of gravity we know of, and why the concept and reality of the term gravity exists, but that displaced gravity field must not only be something, but go somewhere. If at once it was uniform, and now there are massive amounts of masses squeezing it out, and a galaxy is a system with pretty definable edges, we can assume the energy density of the gravity field is being squeezed out towards the edges, and this is how the galaxy retains its object like, system like, circle like, existence, just as the spherical planetary bodies and stars squeeze the gravity field away from itself, resulting in a collection of mass.

so I guess what I am saying, maybe in equations if you figured out the mass of a graviton. Figured out how many gravitons existed in the galaxy. figured if due to the multiple directions of planetary movement, would the gravitons have extra energy due to momentum (that is their intrinsic mass, plus the relativistic mass that may exist due to a planet forcing a graviton to move, which by nature would be inducing momentum), and also if gravitons can interact with gravitons, or gravity field with gravity field i may say, so that may be an extra source of energy/momentum.

Any reason/s you can think of why this approach is impossible to contain the truth? I would love to try to argue those reasons.

originally posted by: ErosA433
So my issue with most of the alternative is that most are argued from an assumption that the current models are absolutely 100% wrong. THEN go on to provide zero evidence to assert their own alternative model is better or correct. Most of the time they do not stand up to any kind of scrutiny what so ever.

I don't know how to estimate a "percentage of wrongness" of a theory. Most of the alternative theories I see are sub-theories of some mainstream theory, so they are in fact not mining any foundation and they are still called alternative. I also think no theory can disprove current models 100% unless we are talking about a small subset of physics. Classical electrodynamics afaik is still part of the mainstream for what concerns certain scales, and is accepted and teached. So if somebody tries an extension on classical electrodynamics to include the subatomic world isn't starting at all from a "100% wrong" side.
But I think I can understand your point, most theories are basically a tentive denial of current mainstream and not a legitimate research that starts from the weakness of current models.

I already said the standard model is not correct, but it is very damn good. Its predictive power is not the same, as a model and a standing point you are able to predict particle interactions for thousands of different channels and come out with an answer experimentally to a high degree of observation. We are weeding out the few that don't work so to speak.

The standard model has some impressive feature, but has a scope and at bigger scales isn't usable. Also being a model is an interpretation and if it isn't explaining everything consistently and without a single error (except for experimental devices tolerance) then it can't be the only one interpretation. As I said (and if I'm wrong please point it out) SM is a set of good tools, but don't explain what things ARE, don't explain WHY parameters are stuck intrinsically, it just assume those are "quantum numbers" and categorize particles on the base of this assumption and the statistics that describe their behavior.

We seem to throw some out out of hand because we have already spent time thinking about the problems they have, and most often than not, their authors do not wish to defend themselves, they place the burden of proof on others, which is NOT how the system works

True, but the problem of tuning a new theory is dependant on how many people are involved into developing it. Somebody may give the correct hint, but if it doesn't pass a test then it's up to an individual to solve the problem, because the problem is of attitude towards things that challenge the basis. If the really smart people were able to "believe at will" and analyze with the same passion those models they could find the higgs mechanism (as analogy) of that theory and make it less wrong. We know Newton's law can't account for the perihelion precession of Mercury, but we still respect Newton, don't we?

a reply to: Mastronaut

If there was no need to postulate that signals cannot travel faster than light, would there be any reason for Bell's inequalities to exist? I'ts a sincere question, I can't find a proper source that can answer this question in a straightforward way.

Perhaps Susskind can help make the issue clearer for you:

but you still seem to rely on some accepted theory to disprove my opinion which is exactly the problem I was implying

I'm not trying to disprove your opinion, what I'm trying to make you understand is that not all mainstream theories are wrong, there is a reason science has reached the current state it is in after hundreds of years of observation and experimentation. Any time I present you with evidence you just side step it by claiming the underlying theory is wrong and therefore the results are wrong.

I completely agree that we need to find the simple rules which underly the complex emergent systems that we observe in nature, but just because we haven't yet got a theory of everything doesn't mean all of our other theories are wrong. It's possible to understand part of a system without really understanding how the rest of it works, which you seem to fail to understand.

However it boils down to what IS mass. Is it an emergent property of matter?

We know what mass is, it's exactly equivalent to energy. I think what you mean to ask is what is gravity. We know that mass is attracted to other mass, and we call that force gravity, but we don't yet understand exactly how it works. My theory simply inverts everything I just said, it introduces negative energy, which is equivalent to negative mass, and produces a negative gravitational force causing negative mass to be repelled from other negative mass.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Yea, like ghost gravity.

Or what is speed of gravity, time delay effect.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut

Perhaps Susskind can help make the issue clearer for you

For what I understood it is problem of transmission of informations at superluminal speed, exactly what he is explaing and I said earlier (so I understood it after all). Since I don't necessarily believe in the idea that there is a speed limit for all kind of signals, the Bell's theorem doesn't have a place in my view. So I'd stand with what I said.

I'm not trying to disprove your opinion, what I'm trying to make you understand is that not all mainstream theories are wrong, there is a reason science has reached the current state it is in after hundreds of years of observation and experimentation. Any time I present you with evidence you just side step it by claiming the underlying theory is wrong and therefore the results are wrong.

I think I repeated this concept multiple times. From a certain points of view all theories, except the one that explains EVERYTHING, are wrong. I don't know how much wrong, unless we take extreme cases (religious, pink elephants and things that have clear agenda behind).
For those which are mainstream I know that all the necessary corrections in the past are due to some fundamental inability to comprehend nature at all scales, but models are models, they can be changed. It probably also boils down to the math we use.
Theories have scopes and they are accepted when they do some relevant prediction and are able to explain a wide variety of phenomena. So they are GOOD and aren't totally wrong, but in fact they are wrong. So I understand the resistance of the system to accept the need for developing parallel theories which starts from different postulates.

I completely agree that we need to find the simple rules which underly the complex emergent systems that we observe in nature, but just because we haven't yet got a theory of everything doesn't mean all of our other theories are wrong. It's possible to understand part of a system without really understanding how the rest of it works, which you seem to fail to understand.

True, but this means that we are trying to predict nature in a manner similar to a very powerful divination rather than EXPLAINING nature, you get my point?

We know what mass is, it's exactly equivalent to energy. I think what you mean to ask is what is gravity. We know that mass is attracted to other mass, and we call that force gravity, but we don't yet understand exactly how it works. My theory simply inverts everything I just said, it introduces negative energy, which is equivalent to negative mass, and produces a negative gravitational force causing negative mass to be repelled from other negative mass.

No we don't know what is mass. If you just think that we recently "discovered" a particle that should be the force carrier of such an effect, we must say it's another field in QFT. We know that mass is equivalent to energy, but is not the same. So what's the difference? Because clearly there is. Mass is localized energy, what does make it stick to a place?
SM doesn't even predict mass, so it's not either a quantum number (yet) or an intrinsic property.

For reasons that would be too long to explain here I find your idea of negative mass and energy much closer to what I feel I believe.
The tendency to equilibrium seems a hint that whenever there's a +plus there must be a -minus. Whatever we perceive is basically a quasi-neutral state of force and matter (mass and energy), a sort of "moment of difference" isolated in space. This is my intuition so it's very hard to overcome the tendecy to believe, even with evidence from mainstream sources, but it does make sense if exist negative energy/mass in this context, it's preferable for me than the runaway effect of mass accretion that must be imply expansion to not collapse.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

My theory simply inverts everything I just said, it introduces negative energy, which is equivalent to negative mass, and produces a negative gravitational force causing negative mass to be repelled from other negative mass.

Are you suggesting that, everything is forced together rather than held together?

a reply to: Mastronaut

Whatever we perceive is basically a quasi-neutral state of force and matter (mass and energy), a sort of "moment of difference" isolated in space. This is my intuition so it's very hard to overcome the tendecy to believe

Please forgive me for jumping into this conversation, but your comment resonated with me.

This is the sort of intuitive thought that forms my own limited understanding of the nature of reality.

Am I correct in interpreting this statement to mean, 'Matter is a phenomena that exists at the moment a flux of energy transitions from one state to another''?

a reply to: Mastronaut

Since I don't necessarily believe in the idea that there is a speed limit for all kind of signals, the Bell's theorem doesn't have a place in my view. So I'd stand with what I said.

Ok but can you really explain instantaneous signaling over any distance in classical terms? It seems to me that any non-local system cannot be defined as a classical system unless you're strictly speaking about simulated systems. You're obviously a realist which is why you feel attached to classical systems and determinism, but Bell's theorem forces you to accept that reality is either non-local or simulated, and neither support classical realism.

I think I repeated this concept multiple times. From a certain points of view all theories, except the one that explains EVERYTHING, are wrong.

It would be more accurate to say they are incomplete. If they make the correct predictions then they are not wrong for their intended purpose. If I can use an equation to make predictions which are right 100% of the time then my theory does everything I need it to do. If it wasn't designed to be a theory of everything then it's not a wrong theory. Science is about looking at which theories make good predictions and then building models from those theories. It takes time to find the one theory to rule them all, but in the mean time there is no reason to discard every other theory and think they are wrong.

If we really didn't understand anything about science then we wouldn't have any of the technology you see around you right now. We don't need a theory of everything to build computers which work properly, because we have very accurate theories describing how electrons flow in a circuit. Those theories are not wrong simply because they don't describe everything about the universe. The equation we use to measure electrical resistance or magnetic induction work 100% of the time with perfect accuracy.

No we don't know what is mass. If you just think that we recently "discovered" a particle that should be the force carrier of such an effect, we must say it's another field in QFT. We know that mass is equivalent to energy, but is not the same. So what's the difference? Because clearly there is. Mass is localized energy, what does make it stick to a place?

You are using the words mass and matter interchangeably but you shouldn't. Matter is just energy in one particular state. All forms of energy have a mass. An object which is moving has more mass than an object which is stationary, even though they both contain the same amount of matter. That means the kinetic energy which the object possesses literally has a mass associated with it. The faster the object is moving, the heavier it will be. That is why anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light, because an object moving that fast would have an infinite mass. As for the structure of energy in particles/matter, well that's the topic of particle physics.

In physics, mass–energy equivalence is the concept that the mass of an object or system is a measure of its energy content. For instance, adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram (and, accordingly, its inertia and weight) even though no matter has been added.

Mass–energy equivalence

it's preferable for me than the runaway effect of mass accretion that must be imply expansion to not collapse.

It's possible to have a universe which expands like our universe does but still have a 0 energy content (positive and negative energy balance out). In fact most physicists tend to lean towards that idea, and they have ways of adding up the dark energy, the dark matter, the normal matter, and everything else, so that it all comes out to 0.

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

My theory simply inverts everything I just said, it introduces negative energy, which is equivalent to negative mass, and produces a negative gravitational force causing negative mass to be repelled from other negative mass.

Are you suggesting that, everything is forced together rather than held together?

No I'm suggesting that the space between all galaxies is filled with a cloud of negative matter: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Well my original theory predicted that the positive matter will still condense into clumps of larger matter, and that negative matter would still form a gas like state, but I also predicted that the positive matter wouldn't get too close to the negative matter, which would result in a cavity/void around the clumps of positive matter where there was no negative or positive matter.

Hi ChaoticOrder

I spent some time thinking about your dark matter theory, I confess, mostly, it is difficult to shake ourselves out of our own paradigms on how things work, and I am more than happy with my own theories, and although I don’t have the scientific background to be able to prove anything one way or another, I do have a very strong intuition that I have it right in my own mind.

Having said that, I believe your theory has strong merit and dovetails perfectly with my own thoughts, after I made a few adjustments to my ideas

I outlined in another post, a conceptual theory I had postulated, or rather rediscovered, through some rather esoteric studies that I stumbled upon, which I am still attempting to flesh out in mind.

Having read your theory, it has suddenly occurred to me that hypothesis which I will term the Pythagorean conceptual theory was misinterpreted by me in an error of scope.

I had always interpreted that, his theory was referring to the entire cosmos, and it has occurred to me, that his theory relates to a Galaxy, so Pythagoras’s Cosmos is a Galaxy. This revelation clears up many questions I had.

Now your theory naturally means that matter/energy, permeates throughout the entire universe, as in filling all space, and is divided equally between positive matter and negative matter. This must be true for your theory to work.

You say your computer model required a tweak so as to make your simulation behave the way you expected, where positive and negative matter/energy came together. I was wondering if your definition of the cavity is clearly defined as you didn’t go into detail.

From my perspective, the cavity or void would occur, as the positive matter and negative matter cancel each other out. Perhaps a violent interaction, as you may expect from the proximity of matter and anti-matter. It would seem to me that a sharp demarkation line on the edge of the void would not exist and that a continuous spectrum of neutral matter through to fully positive matter and fully negative matter would exist within the galaxy and outside of the galaxy . This gradual blending could possible to my way of thinking create a lensing effect, as in, a convex lens composed of positive/negative potential matter.

The theory I clearly see in mind is, that each galaxy is a globe as you describe, rather than a flat space and would comprise of interstellar space full of positive matter and inter-galactic space full of negative particles albeit in a very refined form, as in the tiniest aggregates of sub-atomic particles. I have held the belief for a long time that space is far from empty.

The only issue I have with your theory is the expansion explanation.

If negative energy filling the space between galaxies is finite, then there must come a point where its potency to repel ceases to exert any influence on surrounding negative matter. And if that being the case then I can’t yet, see how that explains red shift.

I am glad I read through your theory though, as it has helped me to place a few pieces of the puzzle for me and corrected a misunderstanding I had.

I am still entirely convinced there was no BB, but the nature of the universe would certainly suggest a balance of both negative and positive energies would exist.

Imagine if we could harvest some of that negative energy, scooped from intergalactic space, we would have antigravity, and an infinite supply of energy, if it didn’t blow a hole in our planet in the process.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Science is about looking at which theories make good predictions and then building models from those theories. It takes time to find the one theory to rule them all, but in the mean time there is no reason to discard every other theory and think they are wrong.

Science is about discovering the true nature of reality, It is possible to make theories which make predictions that have no foundation in reality at all. An example would be to assemble a cube comprised of different coloured cubes, but the correct answer could be a completely red cube.

In other words all the pieces fit together perfectly every time, but nobody knew that they had to match in colour as well as shape. Which is why science is, or soon will be at a loss to understand the big picture.

My personal opinion is that science needs to revue the scientific method to evaluate all possibilities including the subjective. When a subjective concept proves a theory is tenable, then all efforts should be made to make the subjective,objectively observable.

How can science ever move forward without this approach?

a reply to: ErosA433

Are you saying i don't understand the technology? Looping particles around a track of permenant magnets a couple KMs long to simulate high collisions is not going to create Dark matter you are correct.

it will just deplete every particle after colliding because the output of energy consumed by the particles will always outweigh the stability of a particle being rapidly reformed there after.

How is this going to detect Dark Matter i don't know.
But in theory you should beable to find an unfathomable ammount of new particles that will bleep out of existance.
What is there to not understand. The results of such experiments speak for themselves.

a reply to: ErosA433

Also i don't think you are who you say you are. This is the internet. Anyone can be anything on here.

I can be a cowboy caught in the passed and it dosn't make what you or me are saying anymore true.
Because a lot of the stuff you are saying is pretty Generic. IMO

originally posted by: kennyb72
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

My theory simply inverts everything I just said, it introduces negative energy, which is equivalent to negative mass, and produces a negative gravitational force causing negative mass to be repelled from other negative mass.

Are you suggesting that, everything is forced together rather than held together?

I like that concept
That would mean nothing can exist alone or on it's own.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Mastronaut
Ok but can you really explain instantaneous signaling over any distance in classical terms?

Of course not or I would be famous
I have some ideas about this and given all the attention to warp-like theories I'd say there are many views that would break locality in a classical space-time. Transverse EM waves and matter cannot travel faster than C, but space itself can expand at a rate higher than C. I have no solution that can be accepted in the scientific world, but who knows.

It would be more accurate to say they are incomplete. If they make the correct predictions then they are not wrong for their intended purpose. If I can use an equation to make predictions which are right 100% of the time then my theory does everything I need it to do. If it wasn't designed to be a theory of everything then it's not a wrong theory. Science is about looking at which theories make good predictions and then building models from those theories. It takes time to find the one theory to rule them all, but in the mean time there is no reason to discard every other theory and think they are wrong.

It may take forever, we don't know if it's possible to understand nature completely. However our theories are not just incomplete. They have to include mechanisms ad-hoc to explain certain features, which is something that gives a hint about how close to reality they are. However it can be a "legitimate" way of correcting theories to do predictions, but as I said I am not a scientist, I don't need them to make predictions, it's just a matter of willing to know, curiosity, and I don't get by with a patchwork.

If we really didn't understand anything about science then we wouldn't have any of the technology you see around you right now. We don't need a theory of everything to build computers which work properly, because we have very accurate theories describing how electrons flow in a circuit. Those theories are not wrong simply because they don't describe everything about the universe. The equation we use to measure electrical resistance or magnetic induction work 100% of the time with perfect accuracy.

We often overlook at how we do discoveries, which isn't throught theories (Except at large and micro scales). Experiments and intuition make the breakthroughs then theories come in to explain stuff. We do have an understanding of technologies, but we discovered the transistor before theorizing how it work for example. We have more practical and useful theories that are wrong in the absolute sense of the word, but we don't have to deal with the general case ,we may only have to deal with special cases. After all I guess we don't need relativistic correction on the speedometer of your car and it works rather well.

You are using the words mass and matter interchangeably but you shouldn't. Matter is just energy in one particular state. All forms of energy have a mass. An object which is moving has more mass than an object which is stationary, even though they both contain the same amount of matter. That means the kinetic energy which the object possesses literally has a mass associated with it. The faster the object is moving, the heavier it will be. That is why anything with mass cannot reach the speed of light, because an object moving that fast would have an infinite mass. As for the structure of energy in particles/matter, well that's the topic of particle physics.

I'm not really using it interchangeably, mass is the quantity of energy in matter. Photons energy is due to their momentum, not mass, so no form of energy has mass. Mass is the higgs field coupling in the SM, matter isn't. Also relativistic mass is not exactly mass since mass is a property of matter and matter at relativistic speed don't acquire mass in their own reference frame. Mass is just part of the energy of a system, and in mainstream context I'd be careful in using "heavy" since gravitational and inertial mass are supposed to be equal, but not the same afaik.

It's possible to have a universe which expands like our universe does but still have a 0 energy content (positive and negative energy balance out). In fact most physicists tend to lean towards that idea, and they have ways of adding up the dark energy, the dark matter, the normal matter, and everything else, so that it all comes out to 0.

I'll tell you the biggest problem I have with DM in the context of a BB universe which expands.
Currently the FRW equations are classical, so they include no quantum fluctuations. However DM does not interact excetpt gravitationally, and in any universe unless you find a different method for clumping (or must assume at all costs that DM has quantum fluctuations aswell) DM wouldn't accumulate anywhere. Even the distribution of matter requires non uniformity in the initial conditions, but the evolution is then driven by multiple forces interacting in different directions at the same time (ie gravity and pressure or electromagnetism or strong/weak forces). DM does not interact but gravitationally so it would at best oscillate around the initial displacements and not clump thus normal matter wouldn't clump since DM is the driving force to create our universe from the FRW equations.

I'm not sure if we will ever find supersymmetric particles, because I don't have the analytical knowledge to judge if bose-einstein vs fermi-dirac statistics can be seen as one the opposite of the other, like matter and antimatter for ex. If the 2 statistics are something like a 180° phase shift then maybe yes, we will find what we search for, a quantity of energy quantized exactly like the equivalent particle but with a different phase. I think the prediction power of QM is because it does the predictions by evaluating cross-sections, spin and other properties that are coming from experiments. It doesn't make those parameters EMERGE, that's why I feel it's going to be replaced with a stronger theory one day, but I may be wrong!

Now imagine if space is not just a framework, but a thing. And imagine if this thing is modified by gravity, but not mass or matter. And imagine if gravity is a higher order effect of a single force and this force at some other order modify space. You end up having space that bends because of cause X and matter that follows that disturbance increasing the disturbance. And imagine if space is very stretched where we see big voids. There would be filaments of denser space between clusters and thus an effect like DM could very well be not due to particles, but to what we would call gravity without mass.

Or just imagine if the lens effect in due to lensing in the galaxy neighborhood. At these scales there might be some higher order effect that has a preferable alignment (since galaxy rotate they have not infinite degrees of freedom for such effects to distribute spherically).

So before being sure that DM exist as matter or exotic matter, I'm gonna wait for an experimental proof and won't laugh at other fringe theories that try to explain it in another way.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: ErosA433

Also i don't think you are who you say you are. This is the internet. Anyone can be anything on here.

I can be a cowboy caught in the passed and it dosn't make what you or me are saying anymore true.
Because a lot of the stuff you are saying is pretty Generic. IMO

For that, my friend, you don not need the internet

a reply to: AnuTyr

Thats fine, you don't have to believe anything, this is the internet as you point out, but ill also point out that it is funny that our willingness to believe is extremely screwed here, the real people need to prove themselves and the frauds need not anything than a nice youtube video (so ironically i will link a youtube video ).

There are damn good reasons why I do not identify myself by name so you guys can check me out to see if i am legit, not because I have any secrets to hide, but because I just value my privacy, I am also of no illusion that I know everything, I do not, but I have been through the Education system in the UK to the point of my Degree and then Doctorate before I then moved to Canada. In that time iv specifically worked closely with aspects of Neutrino physics, Dark matter, detector development specifically in optical readout and construction, cryogenics handling and purification that represent the very leading edge of such technologies. Iv been directly involved with hands on use of such technologies and thus, know the difficulties of extracting a signal and characterizing the issues of a variety of detectors. Lets just say I am in the background somewhere in this Video



How you discover or make Dark Matter in a collider is simply one of missing mass or missing energy (yes one and the same but you detect it as energy) The proposal is actually to make a supersymmetric particle that is heavier than the lightest. The lightest supersymmetric particle is stable or highly stable in all such models, and such the idea is that you create something that will decay to produce such particle. If it indeed exists, then you will have missing transverse momentum within your detector. You will see energy signature and deposits in your detector systems (your e-cals and h-cals) from jets (highly collimated hadronising showers) everything however must be in balance, you expect that your momentum to be conserved and energy also, thus you don't expect to see a huge amount of energy on one side and not the other. You also expect to roughly be able to extract all the energy you put into the collision and see the result.

A signature of a dark matter particle produced within a collider is that you have a high amount of missing energy transverse to the beamline. Now given the proposed mass of these particles is large, it will be a significant amount. It will be analogous to the beta decay energy spectrum, in which you see a continuum but not the full energy of the decay, In one of these events you see a huge amount of missing energy.

There is also a level of missing energy in LHC detectors already which is from neutrino production, though it is very small and is several orders of magnitude less than that of a dark matter signature.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

"Why Dark Matter is Even Weirder Than You Thought"

because it exists only in the thoughts of physicist??