Comments on: Dark Matter, Dark Photons, And The Fifth Force

By: Thomas Johnson

Thomas Johnson — Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:05:23 +0000

There’s always one.
I think it’s a problem with scale. “This human-manageable item behaves in this way; therefore subatomic particles (& the universe as a whole) must behave the same way.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 19:50:23 +0000

Time to play misconception bingo! "If you’re offended by this post that means you’re invested in the dogma." - false equivalence "protons with like charge can bond together..." - Like charges repel each other, not attract. "'Strong force' accounts for the nuclear integrity – with like charge?! Give me a break." - Ignorance peddling. (I don't understand it, so it must be wrong.) "photons have ‘relativistic mass’" - Not quite. Here's an overview of different types of mass. "Science should be an open-minded search for truth." - Ah, that old chestnut. Bingo!

By: Craig Butler

Craig Butler — Thu, 13 Oct 2016 17:54:58 +0000

I might add that if an atomic forces in the nucleus of, say, a trans-uranium element are strong enough to make bombs out of when split, I don’t think it makes much sense that protons with like charge can bond together that strongly (even if you add the neutrons, which would not make much of a difference in terms of polarized charge anyway). – Or bond together at all! I believe we need to revisit assumptions in our current model of the atom. “Strong force” accounts for the nuclear integrity – with like charge?! Give me a break. That violates common sense, and basic principle of electromagnetism. Of course anyone can say “strong force” as if that explains it. Bah… that is why so many young people can’t make heads or tail of scientific dogma; because it’s dogma, not rational or comprehensible. If you’re offended by this post that means you’re invested in the dogma. Science should be an open-minded search for truth – or at least the facts of Nature’s physics, not vague terms to explain what a mathematical attempt wants to fit into itself. Here is another example: photons have ‘relativistic mass’ so they don’t have to bend with gravity, right? What the bleep is “relativistic mass?” We are told “energy content.” Ok, what is “energy content?” Feel free to find a clear definition of that!

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:47:35 +0000

Huh, I’d always thought it was Zwicky, but for the Milky Way. TIL. Thanks for a new post idea!

By: Jean Tate

Jean Tate — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 16:38:45 +0000

“Dark matter was first proposed to account for the fact that the motion of of hydrogen in the Milky Way didn’t seem to follow the rules of gravity.”

No.

It was Fritz Zwicky who first proposed DM, to account for the apparent shortfall in the mass of the Coma cluster (the estimated mass of the galaxies was way too small). He proposed this in his 1933 paper, “Die Rotverschiebung von extragalaktischen Nebeln” (Helvetica Physica Acta, Vol. 6, p. 110-127).

It annoys me no end that Rubin and Ford are credited with the discovery of DM … they were over 20 years late! Bad enough that this is a popular meme; worse that an astronomer repeats it!!!

By: Robert Crowley

Robert Crowley — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 12:34:12 +0000

How is it that this statistical deviation can be assumed to be due to interaction with an unknown boson? I would like to have seen a bit more information about the process by which that was surmised.

By: rich k

rich k — Mon, 05 Sep 2016 15:00:19 +0000

I am sure my superficial understanding makes this observation seem ignorant but it sure seems appealing for theorists to suggest one phenomenon that isn’t understood must be linked to another that is also mystery.