Re: space?

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 01/17/05 

Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 12:10:29 +0100

TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>TomGee wrote:
>>
>>>Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>TomGee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
[snip]

>>>>>>>We can see through them only because
>>>>>>>it is the same dark matter/energy which scientists have note
>>>>>>>exists but is invisible to us.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Make up your mind. Are they dark matter, dark energy, or both?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> why did you think this question was relevant?

Because dark matter and dark energy behave very differently
(according to observations). So I wanted to know if you
claim that both are the same in your model.

>>>>>The are both, according to current research.
>>>>
>>>>What current research says that dark energy consists of
>>>>particles?
>>>>
>>>>
>
> The same one you claim as "the most-accepted hypothesis"....

That was supersymmetry. You are wrong: supersymmetry says
in no way that dark energy consists of particles. Sorry
that I didn't make myself clear below that I talked only
about dark matter.

>>>You misunderstood again: Current research claims that dark
>>>matter/energy exists.
>>
>>You said that according to current research, "The are both",
>>probably meaning "They" here. I.e. you said that according
>>to current research, your proposed particles are both
>>dark matter and dark energy.
>>
>>
>
> So how was that relevant to the issue, Obfuscator?

See above.

I notice that instead of answering questions and providing
references, you duck them and use insults. Yet again. Not
surprising.

>>>I claim dark matter is potential particles
>>>comprising space which is negative matter having negative energy.
>>>Do
>>>you have a better idea of what dark matter/energy is/are?
>>
>>The most-accepted hypothesis is that it consists of
>>supersymmetric partners of the normal particles. Do you
>>have any idea of supersymmetry?
>
>
>
> Don't turn your nose up at me, ***, your ivory tower is built of
> *** - bull***, that is, and you grovel in it using the same arguments
> used by those who once ridiculed the great ideas. I suppose people
> like you are valuable to Mankind somehow, but it's hard to keep in mind
> why.

Nice way of saying "No, I have no clue of supersymmetry."

>>Another proposal is axions, AFAIK.
>>
>>If you don't think that this is a "better idea", please
>>explain in detail why, and also why you think that thousands
>>of people who have decades of their life thinking about
>>that are all wrong, whereas you, who has almost no knowledge of
>>particle physics at all, are the only one who is right.
>>
>>
>
> First of all, let me quote you: "> Read: "I can't answer this
> argument, so I'll simply use > ridicule."

So yet again, you don't even attempt to answer the question.
No surprise.

> Secondly, you are the one who thinks you are the only one who is right,
> not me.

No, I do not think at all that I am the only one who is right.
Where did you get that strange idea from?

> I throw my ideas along with the others in the same hat, but
> not as being the only ones which are right.

You sure behave as if you thought so.

> Thirdly, I don't think the proposals you note above are better ideas
> than mine because of one, their complexity compared to the simplicity
> of mine (which conforms to Occam's Razor),

Supersymmetry may look mathematically complex at first sight
- but it is a very simple, very appealing idea as soon as
one has understood the reasoning behind it.

> and two, supersymmetry is
> just a theory which proposes a type of symmetry that would apply to all
> elementary particles

Right so far.

> as a GUT

Wrong. Supersymmetry has not much to do with a GUT.

> and thus why should it have anything to
> do with our subject?

*sigh* Because supersymmetric partners of the ordinary
particles are proposed as the Dark Matter. As I already said.

> and three, such superpartner particle as well as
> axions have not yet been found.

Agreed.

[snip]

>>>>Anyway, if they have negative mass, they should repel
>>>>ordinary matter gravitationally (according to Newton's
>>>>law of gravitation). But what is observed is that the dark
>>>>matter *attracts* ordinary matter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought you believed in curved space, not gravitation.
>>
>>1) Curved space (or, better, curved spacetime) is just
>>another name for gravitation, essentially.
>
>
>
> Except that gravitation is real while s-t is fiction, a math construct.

Unsupported assertion.

Please explain why GR is able to explain the observations
so well.

>>Or what do you
>>think why General Relativity is called a theory of gravitation?
>
>
>
> GR was claimed to have overthrown classical gravitation.

Depends on what you mean by "overthrown" exactly. It still
contains classical gravitation as a limiting case.

> It claimed
> that there is no gravitation, only curved space.

No. Why do you think so?

> When did you put out
> your edict to erase that history and put up a new one?

Where did you get this strange idea of the history of GR?

>>2) On such large scales, Newtonian gravity and GR give essentially
>>the same results, so it's irrelevant which one we use to address
>>your claim. GR says the same: things with negative mass/energy
>>should attract.
>
>
> As far as classical physics goes, GR is simply another explanation of
> gravitation,

Well, that's just what I said above. You claimed that I
am wrong, that GR is *not* a description of gravitation.
Merely of curved space.

> so it has to give the same results where results can be
> compared.

Indeed. So we have now: both GR and Newtonian mechanics
say that things with negative mass should repel things
with positive mass (sorry for my fumble above, where I
accidentally wrote "attract"). So your claim that dark
matter consists of things with negative mass contradicts
the observations that dark matter attracts ordinary matter.

>>>Any port in a
>>>storm, eh? Anyway, repulsion or attraction, how can one
>>>tell if one
>>>cannot see that which is causing the effects we observe?
>>
>>By observing the rotation curves of galaxies and the
>>motion of galaxies in clusters, we see that dark matter
>>has an *attractive* force on other matter. Hey, that was
>>the reason why dark matter was originally proposed - that
>>there is more attractive force than can be explained by the
>>observed matter!
>>
>
>
> No, dark matter was originally proposed to explain conflicts due to the
> amount of observable matter in the U.

And this conflict was seen in the rotation curves of galaxies
and the motion of galaxies in clusters first, just as I said. Try
looking here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9904251

> Stop making up your own hitory!!

I didn't. I merely tell you how it happened. See the paper
above.

>>So things with negative mass are ruled out for dark matter
>>- unless you want to modify Newton's law of gravity?
>>(and as well GR)
>>
>>
>
> Just go on dreaming, BF, nothing anyone says will change your
> brainwashed mind except what your false idols say.

So you simply ignore that the observations contradict your
hypothesis. No surprise.

[snip]

>>>Anyway, why is it that you
>>>cannot see a difference between less-than-zero CHARGE and
>>>less-than-zero MASS/ENERGY?
>>
>>Are we talking about mathematical or physical differences
>>here?
>>
>>
>
> I hardly ever talk math constructs, if you have not noticed.

If you have not noticed: "less-than-zero" is a math construct.

[snip]

>>>>But this agreement is an outdated picture. No particle physicist
>>>>today
>>>>believes anymore that these states with less-than-zero energy
>>>>exists.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>That's debatable and subjective,
>>
>>The consensus of tens of thousands of particle physicists,
>>arrived at after years or even decades of discussion, is
>>"debatable and subjective"? Interesting world view.
>>
>>
>
> No. What's debatable is your unsupported statement about what particle
> physicists believe anymore.

Try reading some textbooks on particle physics and Quantum
Field Theory.

I recommend e.g. section 3.5 of the book "An Introduction to
Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin&Schroeder, where it is
discussed in great detail that particles have only
positive energies. You will find similar sections in all
other books on QFT.

>>>and for you to use that trite argument
>>>is shameful and an admission that you have lost this argument.
>>
>>Telling you that tens of thousands of people, who have studied
>>this stuff for years or decades in detail, disagree with you,
>>is a "trite argument" and "shameful"? Yes, really an
>>interesting world view.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is trite and shameful of you to use such arguments in a science
> ng.

Why?

[snip]

>>>>And about in 1945, their existence was explained without
>>>>any recourse to negative energy or mass.
>>>>
>>>>
>
> But the explanation was never confirmed like Dirac's explanations were.

1) What was a confirmation of Dirac's explanation, in your opinion?
The discovery of the positron? The existence of the positron
is also explained by QFT, so it can't be used for judging if
the explanation by QFT or Dirac's explanation is right.
2) QFT is the best-confirmed theory in physics ever, whereas
it was shown soon after Dirac proposed his equation (on which
his explanation is based) that it does not work properly. Read
up on "Klein's paradox".

> Physicists just could not bear to have the word "invisible" come out
> of their mouths and so they worked hard with our tax monies to come up
> with a way to dump it, like they did with the massless photon.

You really have not the faintest clue what you are talking
about. Crack open a book on QFT and actually *learn* something
about the things you attack, please.

>>>Spoken like a true Theoretical Physicist!
>>
>>Read: "I can't answer this argument, so I'll simply use
>>ridicule."
>>
>>
>
> To be called a T. physicist is not ridicule, BF. It simply means that
> you are arguing as T. Physicists do, using math constructs without
> regard to empirical observation.

Err, no. I am merely pointing out that the observations contradict
your ideas.

Observations confirming QFT contradict Dirac's explanations.
Observations of dark matter contradict your idea of negative
mass particles making up dark matter. Etc.

> Every scientist is a T. Physicist.
> It is only when we move from theory into the realm of experiment that
> we can say our work is based on more than ideas alone.

Fortunately, I do.

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast