Re: space?

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 01/18/05 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 12:00:08 +0100

TomGee wrote:
> Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
>
>>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 same what? Do you ask if they are equivalent?

I ask if they are in your model both composed of the same
stuff - your "negative mass" particles.

> I would think they
> are interdependent similar to the way visible mass/energy are, but like
> visible mass/energy, they are by no means the same thing.

Thanks for clearing this up.

> Why should you think otherwise of dark matter/energy?

In standard physics, the relationship between dark matter
and dark energy has nothing to do with the relationship
between visible mass/energy. I simply wanted to know what
you think about that in your model.

> The principles of mass and of energy have been combined into one
> principle, but that does not connote they are equivalent.

I'm not sure what you mean with "the principles of mass and of
energy".

[snip]

>>>>>>>The are both, according to current research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What current research says that dark energy consists of
>>>>>>particles?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> None, AFAIK. Why do you make such a claim?

*sigh* Go back in the thread. I asked you if your
"negative mass" particles are dark matter or dark energy,
and you responded with the above
"The[y] are both, according to current research."
I.e. you said that according to current research, the
negative mass particles are both dark matter and dark energy.

We have been through this before already; have you again
already forgotten all that?

>>>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: I never said that supersymmetry theory claims
> dark energy is equivalent to dark matter.

*sigh*

I asked: "What current research says that dark energy consists of
particles?"

You answered with ""The same one you claim as "the most-accepted
hypothesis"....

What I claimed as the most-accepted hypothesis was supersymmetry.

So you clearly said here that according to supersymmetry,
dark energy consists of particles.

>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>
>
> You misunderstood again: I said only that space is comprised of dark
> matter and dark energy.

*sigh* Go back in the thread. I asked you if your
"negative mass" particles are dark matter or dark energy,
and you responded with the above
"The[y] are both, according to current research."
I.e. you said that according to current research, the
negative mass particles are both dark matter and dark energy.

We have been through this before already; have you again
already forgotten all that?

> You have evidently a comprehension problem.

Well, here it is really appropriate: Pot. Kettle. Black.

>>>So how was that relevant to the issue, Obfuscator?
>>
> SNIP
>
>>I notice that instead of answering questions and providing
>>references, you duck them and use insults. Yet again. Not
>>surprising.
>>
>>
>
> I answer all your relevant questions, while you don't.

Liar. I did not ignore any relevant questions of you so
far.

> Therefore (Here it comes again!!): Pot. Kettle. Black.

And as usual from you: not in any way appropriately used.

[snip]

>>>>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."
>>
>>
>
> You're the one who has no clue.

Hint: I heard several lectures on it. Where did *you*
get your knowledge about it from?

> You don't even know why the theory was proposed.

How do you know? We did not discuss that so far.

>>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> Your comprehension problem is incredible! You have no clue what it
> means when one starts out with, "First of all,....", nor what
> "Secondly,..." means, nor what "Thirdly, ..." means.

Err, I simply pointed out that *none* of your several points
was even an attempt to answer the question.

>>>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?
>>
>>
>
> From: Pot. Kettle. Black, where else?

Well, that has nothing to do with thinking that I am the
only one who is right.

Thanks for showing your comprehension problems again.

>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> According to your very subjective opinion, right?

Yes. According to what else could I mean here?

>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah, right. Then why don't you understand it if it's so simple?

Why do you think I don't understand 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.
>>
>>
>
> Idiot. "One type of GUT contains a theory called supersymmetry (SUSY),
> first suggested in 1971."
> Microsoft ® Encarta ® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft
> Corporation. All rights reserved.

Err, that one type of GUT *contains* supersymmetry does
not make supersymmetry *itself* a GUT, as you claimed above.

Thanks for showing your reading comprehension problems, yet
again.

>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> Well, you just show us where you got that from, since what I've read
> about SUSY is that it posits very specific rules of particle
> interactions.

That is a small part of SUSY only. The most important part
is what you mention below - the so-called "superpartners".

> It claims that while particles have partner
> antiparticles which are fermions or bosuns the same as the particle,
> SUSY partners should be a fermion and a bosun.

Right. And some of these SUSY partners are assumed to be the dark
matter. Especially the so-called "neutralino".

> Now, my model does not
> rule out that SUSY antiparticles may be dark matter, but I want to read
> where it clearly states that, for my own reference.

Look e.g. here:
<http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175>

[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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> No, what is observed is that the effects are similar to gravitation
> effects, but I have not yet found where it states that the effect is
> one of attraction and not repulsion.

As I already pointed out: dark matter was invented in order
to explain *missing mass*, which was seen in galaxy rotation
curves and motions of galaxies in clusters. What do *you* suggests
how one sees that mass is missing, if not by observing that
*attraction* is missing?

> It seems reasonable to think that
> if invisible matter/energy in some ways acts opposite to the way
> visible matter/energy acts, it is possible that dark matter/energy
> repels visible matter/energy.

But that is in no way supported by the evidence.

If you can explain the rotation curves of galaxies with
*repelling* dark matter, feel free to do so. Hint: with
*attracting* dark matter, they are explained quite nicely.

>>>>>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.
>>
>
>
> Not unsupported at all. I have already explained well that assertion.

Maybe elsewhere, but not in this thread.

>>Please explain why GR is able to explain the observations
>>so well.
>>
>>
>
> Oh, have you been able to observe GR's s-t?

I did not claim I have been.

> Publish your empirical
> evidence and become rich and famous, why doncha?

Evasion noted.

>>>>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?
>>
>>
>
> Because that is what I was taught above GR.

Where? By whom?

> I still run across that
> same inanity from time to time.

Where?

> I do not agree that GR overthrew
> classical physics as far as Newton was able to go, especially with the
> silly notion of curved space.

If you can explain e.g. light bending at the sun without
curved space, feel free to show your work.

[snip]

>>>>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 I said, show us where it says exactly that, as I have not read where
> it uses the term of attraction specifically as opposed to repulsion.

To what does "it" refer here? To GR? If yes, you might try
reading up on the Newtonian limit of GR.

> It implies attraction by use of the term "gravitation", which is
> attraction wrt visible matter, but it fails to understand that with
> invisible matter it may be that gravitation is not attraction but
> repulsion instead.

As I said: then you would be unable to explain the rotation
curves of galaxies etc.

Look e.g. here:
<http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm>
Notice phrases like "the gravity pulling on a star", i.e.
gravitational attraction. And:
"There must be extra mass in the Galaxy we cannot see to create the
extra amount of gravity force. The Galaxy is spinning too quickly---the
visible matter does not have enough mass to keep the Galaxy together!"
Still obviously talking about *attracting* forces.

>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> No, I said that it has been claimed that curved space theory has
> replaced classical gravitation.

Originally, you did not use the word "classical". You merely
said that it has been claimed that GR has replaced *gravitation*.

> My point is that GR is nothing more
> than a description of gravitation

Full agreement on that! Could you please give even *one*
reference which says otherwise?

> but it calls gravitation "curved space"

Only vaguely right.

> and states that they is no such thing as gravitation.

Wrong! Could you please give even *one* reference
which says that?

[snip]

>>>>>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.
>
>
>
> No, you don't see that at all, you just imagine that.

Again, read this:
<http://www.astronomynotes.com/ismnotes/s7.htm>

Dark matter was *invented* *specifically* in order to
explain where the "extra" pull of gravity comes from!!!

> It could be that
> since there is maybe ten times the amount of dark matter compared to
> visible matter, the effect of gravitation of dark matter is not
> attraction but repulsion.

THAT COULD IN NO WAY EXPLAIN THE DATA!!!!!

> No one thought about that so no one thought
> to pursue the answer, but you have decided that gravitational effects
> from dark matter are the same as from visible matter, but why should
> they be?

BECAUSE DARK MATTER WAS ESPECIALLY INVENTED IN ORDER TO
EXPLAIN THE MISSING ATTRACTION FORCES!!!!!

>>>>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
>>
>>
>
> Ok, but that came later

Wrong. What is described in this paper is the *early*
history of Dark Matter, i.e. it tells us what came *first*,
not what came later.

The *first* scientific article *ever* proposing Dark
Matter was the one by Zwicky in 1933, and he based his
proposal on observing the motion of galaxies in galaxy
clusters.

> after it was proposed that there should be more
> visible matter in the U. to account for the huge amounts of gravitation
> required to first cause the coming together of visible matter and then
> to hold the amount of visible matter in galaxies together.

Who ever proposed that there should be more *visible* matter?

But thanks for admitting that dark matter was invented in
order to explain how galaxies "hold together". Could you
pleasee explain how galaxies could be "hold together" using
dark matter with *repulsive* gravitational forces?

>>
> SNIP
>
>>>>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)
>>>>
>>>>
>
> You just had not thought that gravitation may act differently for
> invisible matter than for visible matter.

*sigh*
I just has not thought about that because dark matter was
invented specifically in order to explain the missing
*attractive* forces.

[snip ramblings]

>>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>
> If you have read them, why not use their arguments against mine?
> Surely their great minds can help you overthrow my ideas?

Err, we were not talking about arguments here. We are merely
talking about my statement what particle physicists think
about this today.

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast