Thanks Red Badger.
· String Theory Ping List ·
· Join · Bookmark · Topics · Google ·
· View or Post in 'blog · post a topic · subscribe ·
Posted on 04/25/2019 7:37:31 AM PDT by Red Badger
One of Stephen Hawking's most famous theories about dark matter — that this mysterious and invisible substance is made up of primordial black holes — recently suffered a huge blow. That conclusion comes from a massive telescope that captured an image of an entire galaxy in one shot.
The findings don't completely rule out Stephen Hawking's famous notion. But they suggest that primordial black holes would have to be truly tiny to explain dark matter. Dark matter mystery
Dark matter is the name given by physicists to explain a particularly mysterious phenomenon: Everything in the universe moves, orbits and rotates as if there were more mass than we can detect. Explanations for dark matter range from ghostly particles called neutrinos to unknown particles, to new laws of physics. In the 1970s, Stephen Hawking and his colleagues theorized that the Big Bang may have created a large number of relatively small black holes — each about the size of a proton. These tiny, ancient black holes would be difficult to see, yet would exert a large gravitational pull on other objects — the two known properties of dark matter. [The 11 Biggest Unanswered Questions About Dark Matter]
Until now, this theory could only be tested for primordial black holes heavier than the moon. But as technology has improved, scientists have been able to take sharper and sharper pictures of outer space. The Hyper Suprime-Cam (HSC) digital camera on the Subaru telescope in Hawaii is an advanced piece of imaging technology that can take a picture of the entire Andromeda galaxy (the nearest galaxy to our own) in one shot. Masahiro Takada and his team at the Kavli Institute for the Physics and Mathematics of the Universe in Japan used this camera to search for primordial black holes;
(Excerpt) Read more at livescience.com ...
> Has light been observed to be bent
Yes.
> by gravitation effect... whether we understand the mechanism or not?
Speculative, unproven.
Thanks Red Badger.
General Relativity has been the accepted version ever since it predicted the change in Mercury's orbit and the deflection of star light seen during a solar eclipse. It predicted these "Einstein Rings" seen in the above image. It's true that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics don't mesh logically together and the greatest conflict is demonstrated by black holes and dark matter.
This contradiction screams out for some kind of modification and resolving that has been the Holy Grail of Physics for nearly a century. I happen to believe String Theory resolves the issue. Experimental physicists have been searching for years for this so called 'Dark Matter' and have yet to find it
I contend "Dark Matter" is no more real than the ether that supposedly carried light or the Philosophers Stone.
How to explain this unseen matter? Since String theory postulates 10, 11 or even 26 separate dimensions you could literally stack 3 dimensional universes like pages in a book. Gravity is a weak force because it effects the other pages . We are literally seeing the effects of another page next to our universe! That means that weird things like the ever increasing expansion of the universe or virtual particles producing quantum noise are simply the result of these extra dimensions . String theory also has ways of removing division by zero for black holes. It has the added benefit of predicting gravity from it's basic tenants. It's simply too beautiful not to be true as far as I am concerned.
String theory is more mysti-mathematical nonsense. Again, hiding all the flaws of the theory in an unfalsifiable construct is not and cannot be the practice of science.
What? You mean this is not about Chicago, Tel Aviv, or SanFrancisco???
That assumes it is unfalsifiable. One of the things it predicts is matter affecting our universe sight unseen. It also would predict some galaxies without dark matter which has just been discovered as well.
Extra dimensions are pretty much the definition of unfalsifiable.
String theory is pure science fiction. It has no relevance whatsoever to the real universe.
String theory and dark matter and extra universes are mysticism. That an conceptual paradigm of the universe should require these things is as clear a sign as one can get that the paradigm is wrong.
Must be nice to have such certainty. Given a universe of many different dimensions where we are stuck living in 3 of them it such does a nice job of explaining what we are seeing but to each his own.
It’s easy to have certainty on that point, given that not a shred of actual evidence for the existence of extra dimensions has ever been discovered.
So yes, I can toss a totally baseless fantasy out the window with extreme confidence - you can bet the farm on it.
Really ..."Speculative, unproven?"..you admit we seen light bend..it a way predicted..what other force to you proposed?..have we Observed your proposal unknown force acting on any thing else?..or to content gravity done not exist
You seem to be contenting a force we we observe acting on objects ...
That we call "gravity"
which you also agree that we don't really understand how it works...
is not the same force we see acting on light...
and you propose a 2nt unknown mystery force acting on light
yet don't see observe this 2nt unknown mystery force acting on anything else.
What we call "gravity" is observed..acting on matter in a predictable manner...
and we observed light being acted on in what appears to be the same predictable way gravity acts on matter
Buy you say it not gravity acting on light with a contradictory statement
you say it can't be gravity cause gravity can't act on light because light has no mass...then go back to say we don't understand how gravity works
so your statement ..gravity can't act on things without mass ..and we do not nderstand gravity is contradictor
...also add in do we completely understand how light works in that acts like a both a wave and a particle
.. so we're stuck with just observing a predictable behavior
that light and matter both react to something in the same way...that we call gravity
it’s called refraction and doesn’t rely on any voodoo mysticism to explain it, just plain old classical physics
that’s why Einstein rings are blue... this is a refraction effect
Yes.
All the time.
Yes I know that !
The question wasn’t aimed at you.
The existence of black holes is predicted by the General Theory of Relativity which is currently the most infallible scientific theory ever devised.
Nice religion you got there.
You think the General Theory of Relativity is also false?
“Please post articles about dark matter and energy, multi-universe, string theory, big bang, etc where they belong, in the religion section.”
Or, if there’s a sub-section under “Religion” that says “Cults”, post it there.
Call me when you can reconcile it with quantum mechanics.
Until then, enjoy the relativity cult I guess.
Oh you’re one of THOSE...you do know it’s been demonstrated in every experiment it’s ever been subjected to right? Even something like GPS wouldn’t work if GR was not accounted for. It’s demonstrated in the lab.
Please describe the experiment that tests general relativity in a lab. We can test quantum mechanics in a lab and prove things that conflict with general relativity.
GR is not needed at all for GPS to work correctly, nor is it needed to explain any of the other alleged proofs of its correctness. Meanwhile, it can’t explain things like galaxy rotation curves at all and ends up demanding complete absurdities that require physical impossibilities (cosmic inflation, black holes, neutron stars, dark matter and energy and so on).
That GR now requires the addition of 33 times the amount of observable stuff in the form of “dark” matter and energy in order to hold it together demonstrates that it is a dramatically failed theory and not a successful one at all; and as such, a reasonable person is all but required to question whether this theory has outlived its usefulness. There are more things GR gets wrong than it gets right - I could list phenomena that don’t fit the GR model, yet appear to exist, or alternatively those that are demanded by the model and don’t appear to exist, all day.
It’s well past time for a new theory more appropriate to a post-discovery-of-electricity era.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.