I need a theoretical physicist, please.

LOL I spat my Coffee on that one.
a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: Direne
It being a negative approach would put or place it on the neutron side of things an on the other extreme or positive space time otherwise ordered and entangled pairs would be an impossibility the speed of light of c is how fast that exchange would take place say if gold in the alpha centauri had a ordered or entangled pair in ours or the Sol region.

The thing is since all of this business observable is supposed to have emanated out of the big bang then in theory everything is an ordered pair and or entangled. So after what gets or got called the big bang should really be thought of as the great entanglement.

The thought experiment of "When all things are returnable to one, to what is the one returnable?" is worth bearing in mind, over time of holding it all such things become clear, however dropping it before it is really truly resolved is not suggested so a resolve r vow not to let it go until it can no longer be held is the wise thing to do.

Just Dropped by to mention that, the field of Dark Matter is quite alive and well. When people say "Lots of experiments have tried and have all failed" it is to admit that you don't quite understand what the parameter space is, and what the field is looking for in each case.

The Parameter space for Weakly Interacting massive particles actually has a fair bit of parameter space which can be 'easily searched' before we have to start looking elsewhere.

The evidence for Dark Matter, is actually very large, it is also constant across different measurements at different scales.

From movement of stars within galaxies, to the movement galaxies within clusters, and even global movement of clusters of galaxies. It is motivated by the Lambda-CDM model which gives a very high accurate fit to the observable cosmic microwave background. We see gravitational lensing which cannot be explained by the observable light, though is explained by the presence of extra mass that is unobserved, as required for a gravitationally bound system based on the movement of the same objects. Thus we have corroborating evidence, to which so called 'Dark Matter' fits to quite well, with minimal free parameters.

So you see it isn't a simple fudge factor, regardless of how it might feel to say that thinking you might have somehow one upped the whole field of Astro-particle physics. Or feel you might be able to explain it away to fit a narrative. There is an extraordinary amount of evidence, and to brush it aside, you require a hell of a lot more effort than the brush off iv witnessed on these forums so many times.

While I am not a theoretical physicist, I am an experimental particle physicist with expertise in Detector development, construction and radio purity. I was instrumental in the construction of the Largest Argon dark matter experiment in the world, and am currently working in a different field of rare event searches, in the form of neutrino-less double beta decay. I used to frequent the S&T forums here though have as late, not visited in quite some time.


In terms of probing Dark Matter, the question is difficult because the main assumption out of all assumptions is that there is an interaction between our Dark Matter candidate, and particles defined by the Standard Model. If the matter only interacts gravitationally then frankly we are rather screwed in terms of direct measurement. What we work with is that the best models that give us a chance of measurement on Earth would be to observe Dark Mark Matter as we pass through our galaxy, the dark matter being present in a roughly spherical halo that surrounds the galaxy. If the local density is high enough we can possibly get it.

The best two models at the moment is a stable relic particle, that cannot be made in abundance in our epoch, that interacts via the weak interaction, or is created via a mediator with the electromagnetic spectrum, not readily found in nature.

This currently leaves us with the so called Weakly Interacting massive particle, a relative of this, with a dodgy name, multi interacting massive particle (its a relative of the WIMP, but basically has a higher cross section allowing it to possibly hide in plain sight but actually interacting more readily. Meaning searching for it might not necessarily require ultra deep underground sites. This particle could be some kind of supersymmetric particle, in those models there is always a high mass and stable particle at the bottom. It could also be a right handed neutrino, the mediator of the mechanism that drives observed Neutrino Oscillation. There are a few others as already pointed out in that diagram posted on the 2nd? 3rd? page.
The other would be Axions which are created via an interaction between photons and the magnetic field.

We are searching for these different dark matter candidates at underground labs, at particle accelerators and in astrophysical sources that give us possible annihilation signals. What i am talking about are the 'easy ones' Because you have to start somewhere... and so.. .start at a place you have the possibility of seeing something.

a reply to: ErosA433I think looking at it as a different form or a variant of a nebula is likely the way to go... an immediate visual for thinking would be clear ocean water and when a squid moves it kicks up sand or dust but sometimes it also sprays ink. Not to mean that's how such a thing works out in space as particle physics but how it does on a more localized scale of "particulate" physics also the difference between cloud, smoke, fog, smog etc. in the vein of carrier wave(s).

The above simile should help those more literary with visualizing and those more visualizing grasp what is being discussed literarily.

Singling out a particle and observing how it "behaves" isn't exactly an easy thing to do. So hats off to all of those people trying to pull out individual hairs with a claw hammer.

Oh wait maybe it should be hats on.