Hubble provides new evidence for dark matter around small galaxies
March 12, 2009
These four dwarf galaxies are part of a census of small galaxies in the tumultuous heart of the nearby Perseus galaxy cluster. The galaxies appear smooth and symmetrical, suggesting that they have not been tidally disrupted by the pull of gravity in the dense cluster environment. Larger galaxies around them, however, are being ripped apart by the gravitational tug of other galaxies. The images, taken by NASA/ESA's Hubble Space Telescope, are evidence that the undisturbed galaxies are enshrouded by a "cushion" of dark matter, which protects them from their rough-and-tumble neighborhood. Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the Universe's mass. Astronomers have deduced the existence of dark matter by observing its gravitational influence on normal matter, consisting of stars, gas, and dust. Observations by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys spotted 29 dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Perseus Cluster, located 250 million light-years away and one of the closest galaxy clusters to Earth. Of those galaxies, 17 are new discoveries. The images were taken in 2005. Credit: NASA, ESA and C. Conselice (University of Nottingham, U.K.)
Peering into the tumultuous heart of the nearby Perseus galaxy cluster, Hubble discovered a large population of small galaxies that have remained intact while larger galaxies around them are being ripped apart by the gravitational tug of other galaxies.
The Hubble images provide further evidence that the undisturbed galaxies are enshrouded by a "cushion" of dark matter that protects them from their rough-and-tumble neighbourhood.
Dark matter is an invisible form of matter that accounts for most of the Universe's mass. Astronomers have deduced the existence of dark matter by observing its gravitational influence on normal matter, such as stars, gas and dust.
"We were surprised to find so many dwarf galaxies in the core of this cluster that were so smooth and round and had no evidence at all of any kind of disturbance," says astronomer Christopher Conselice of the University of Nottingham, UK, and leader of the team that made the Hubble observations. "These dwarfs are very old galaxies that have been in the cluster for a long time. So if something was going to disrupt them, it would have happened by now. They must be very, very dark-matter-dominated galaxies."
The dwarf galaxies may have an even higher amount of dark matter than spiral galaxies. "With these results, we cannot say whether the dark matter content of the dwarfs is higher than in the Milky Way Galaxy," Conselice says. "Although, the fact that spiral galaxies are destroyed in clusters, while the dwarfs are not, suggests that this is indeed the case."
First proposed about 80 years ago by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky, dark matter is thought to be the glue that holds galaxies together. Astronomers suggest that dark matter provides a vital scaffolding for the Universe, forming a framework for the formation of galaxies through gravitational attraction.
Observations by Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys spotted 29 dwarf elliptical galaxies in the Perseus Cluster, located 250 million light-years away and one of the closest galaxy clusters to Earth. Of these galaxies, 17 are new discoveries.
Because dark matter cannot be seen, astronomers detected its presence through indirect evidence. The most common method is by measuring the velocities of individual stars or groups of stars as they move randomly in the galaxy or as they rotate around the galaxy. The Perseus Cluster is too far away for telescopes to resolve individual stars and measure their motions. So Conselice and his team derived a new technique for uncovering dark matter in these dwarf galaxies by determining the minimum additional mass contribution from dark matter that the dwarfs must have to protect them from being disrupted by the strong, tidal pull of gravity from larger galaxies.
Studying these small galaxies in detail was possible only because of the sharpness of Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys. Conselice and his team first spied the galaxies with the WIYN Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory. These observations, Conselice says, only hinted that many of the galaxies were smooth and therefore dark matter dominated. "Those ground-based observations could not resolve the galaxies, so we needed Hubble imaging to nail it," he says.
The Hubble results appeared in the 1 March issue of Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Source: ESA/Hubble Information Centre (news : web)
Aug 16, 2007 |
not rated yet |
0
http://www.presto...ndex.htm
Sure thing Genius, where's your math?
When we talk dark matter I get the sense that most of the time the person is meaning some kind of exotic matter and that this conclusion is reached without due consideration.
When people start to talk about dark matter as just being matter that is not in stars it seems to me incredibly stupid that anyone would think that most of the matter in the universe would be matter that exists in stars.
Why wouldn't 90 or for that matter 99% of all matter in the universe be dark. The natural state of matter is not to be hot and enclosed in glowing fiery balls of plasma. Matter is naturally dark and only glows when it reaches a high temperature.
So in that sense of course a large proportion of matter in the universe is not going to be in stars - why should it? What would make people think that it should be?
It just annoys me when the theorists come out and say that the dark matter must be something exotic otherwise it would not be dark duh. No logic in that at all.
Second question:
Why are small galaxies assumed to be shielded from disruption by the existence of DM but not large galaxies? Shouldn't we assume that larger galaxies are surrounded by larger amounts of DM?
It's possibly because they are what they appear to be - simple dwarf galaxies - that they've managed to skim past the attentions of their bigger neighbours.
Then we did the math to explain what we're seeing in the Universe in terms of motion and we had a big, big problem. Galaxies are too round. Dark matter is the explanation they came up with as being the most sound, unfortunately everyone focuses on the exotic part rather than the un-illuminated part.
You'd expect to see a different behavior when we send items into space in that case. Now we could also be completely wrong and gravity could work differently than we think it does. We have more than enough evidence to suggest that our understanding (slight as it is) of gravity is entirely wrong.
Although I agree with you, even matter that isn't illuminated with visible light will absorb energy in space. Based off of vaccuum energy these atoms would at least give off some sort of radiation, be it ultraviolet, infrared, xray, etc through which we could detect it's presence. Since we can't detect a direct presence it's assumed that the matter doesn't interact with baryonic matter, or behave as baryonic matter does leaving the assumption of exotic matter as the most probably reason.
Realistically I'd wager my money on our lack of knowledge about gravity causing these abnormalities as we see them, meaning a lot of our calculations about the size, shape, and composition of the universe are wrong.
should not enshroud the galaxies bat concentrate in their central regions.
ladislaus.
Any object that is moving can not be pinned down to be in any one location at any one time. It is all an illusion.
Because moving objects can not be in any one location at any time. If they could they would not be moving. This ties back directly to momentum and all the other expressions we use for the same thing.
There is no such thing as an instant of time - it is a analog concept and can thus be divided up forever without ever reaching the smallest part of it.
Therefore we can only approximate the location of an object anywhere - since all objects are moving.
If we have two objects that are stationary relative to each other then we can define their location in that frame of reference only.
We don't have to look at electrons around an atom to get confused about location and mass.
It does. But mass counts and the greater the mass the greater the certainty. Protons are two thousand times as massive as an electron and hence there is far less uncertainty to them.
For YOU it is an analog concept. For some the whole idea of time is an illusion. I don't see any need for it to be analog. At present it looks like Plank's constant applies and thus there is a Plank Instant of time.
Do you think electrons orbit the nucleus?
Ethelred
"movement of an object with mass is a type of illusion since each object is "at rest" within its own inertial reference frame (see Newton's first law): i.e. both its position and momentum is known simultaneously: If not, the principle of inertia will be null and void. This would imply that all physics created since Newton must crumble: For this resaon Heisenberg's interpretation of his uncertainty in postion and momentum as actual uncertainties in the centre of mass of a particle is poppycock!
Newton's Theory of Gravity has been superseded by Einstein's.
Amazing just how well the 'poppycock' works. Josephson junction devices for instance could not work if there was no uncertainty.
Get over it. Newton's mechanical universe is an outmoded model. Claiming that QM is wrong based on quotes from Newton is silly.
Ethelred
I know it does not account for all the phenomena in the world (and beyond) but it will work fairly well.
But fairly is unfortunately not enough to explain these kind of events. However, with Newtonian Physics one can see why there has to be some matter that we can't detect. It will probably take QM or something even more sophisticated to explain it but the one is not better than the other. The one is more complete than the other but that does not mean better.
Have you ever tried to calculate a moving car using QM?
Me neither ;-)
No one is saying Newton's formulas are wrong. Incomplete would be a better descriptor.
I did not claim that quantum mechanics is wrong. What I claimed is that Heisenberg's interpretation of the uncertainty in position and momentum as actual uncertainties of a "point-particle" is wrong. All that this relationship gives is the simultaneous sizes of a Schroedinger-wave in position and momentum spaces: This is the case for all knwon waves, so why should it be any different for Schroedinger waves?
Josephson tunnelling obviously depends on Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship BUT NOT ON THE ONE FOR POSITION AND MOMENTUM: It is determined by the uncertainty relationship for energy and time.
In fact, superconduction occurs because of the latter relationship. A charge-carrier borrows energy for the allowed time interval and moves to the position of the next charge-carrier, which borrows energy etc. If this energy was not on loan, it would have dissipated as heat thus causing electrical resistivity.
A charge-carrier moves through a Josephson junction in exactly the same manner, but since the distance it travels is now different from the average distance within the superconsuctor, a phase change is caused: i.e. the phase relationship is between the positions of the charge-carriers as one would find for any periodic system.
According to the normal description of Josephson tunnelling it breaks down when the electric-field in tha junction breaks up the Cooper pair. This implies that there is always an electric field within the junction but without a voltage over the junction; until the Cooper pairs break up. It is impossible to have an electric field within any material without being able to measure a voltage: This violates the most basic proven physics ever!
According to the Bell's Inequality experiments Heisenberg was right.
Mass. Less mass more uncertainty.
All the complementary characteristics are covered by the same idea. Why do you think position and momentum are special?
That isn't the Cooper Pair model. That has electrons pairing up and exhibiting boson like behavior.
http://en.wikiped...per_pair
Nowhere there can I see anything about borrowing energy. I do see that an energy gap might be created.
Would you care to post a link covering that? I am having a very hard time finding anything that actually goes into modeling the Josephson Junction. Some equations but no models and unfortunately those equations are quite beyond me. The only thing I could find was by someone that was not a physicist and he had the same ideas I do. That is that the junction is dependent on the uncertainty of position in an electron's waveform.
Oddly enough current flows in a JJ when there is no voltage.
In any case why do you think position and momentum are special? Why quote Newton when you are not dealing with classical mechanics?
Ethelred
Not at all! Einstein was and is still right: Two "particles" CANNOT communicate faster than the speed of light. "Entanglement" thus means that the "entangled particles" are NOT "particles" but a single wave-entity. This violates the principle of complementarity.
Sorry I cannot follow this argument: If it is one!
Because there are no "particles": Only waves!
I know it is NOT the Cooper pair model. Supercondution does not require bosons! Cooper pairs do not exist since they cannot cancel an applied static conservative electric-field. For the latter one needs static polarisation at the position of each and every charge-carrier. Cooper pairs are supposedly held together by transient polarisation.
Obviously not; because BCS is without a C: The energy gap is a constant gap which is generated by a metal-insulator transition: The localised electron-orbitals in thw insulator-phase then move by borrowing energy. Explain to me why the electronic heat capacity jumps at the critical temperature while the "binding energy" of Cooper pairs is still zero! There is NO reason at all why the phase has to need more heat to break-up a Cooper pair.
You are starting to put your thumb on it: Josephson's model is obscure because he used quantum field theory. But any text book will tell you that a Cooper pair supposedly breaks up when moving through a J-junction when it is accelerated so that its kinetic energy equals the binding energy of the Cooper pair. This is not possible because there is no electric field within the junction which can accelerate it
Exactly; just as it flows through the superconductor itself when there is no electric-field. This requires a cancellation of the applied static electric-field; which is not possible for Cooper pairs: See above!
Because even quantum mechanics is based on Galileo's and Newton's principle of inertia which demands that any body with mass must be at rest within its own inertial reference frame: That means that the position and momentum of a free electron MUST be known simltaneously at all times.
Then I looked back and saw that you've claimed you can create Bose Einstein condensates at room temperature in a prior commentary post.
http://www.physor...483.html
At least that's what it looks like, and your lack of commentary afterwards is somewhat telling.
Thanks, now I understand what was meant by more mass less uncertainty. I was probably just tired. But it is, of course not actual uncertainties in position of a particle with mass. It is only the simultaneous sizes of the relevant wave in position and momentum spaces: Only when the boudary conditions change do these sizes change: It has NOTHING to do with actual uncertainties in the position and momentum of a point particle.
To answer your comment on Bose-Einstein condensate I would like to know whether you consider a laser beam as a Bose-Einstein condensate. The problem as I see it comes from Bohr' principle of complementarity which implies that a laser beam consists of many photons. It is not the case: It is just a single coherent wave: THe photons have entangled and do not exist as entities anymore. By analogy, a Bose Einstein condensate of "paired electrons" must then also be a single coherent wave: I have generated such a wave in my laboratory: It is of course superconducting but has no separate charge-carriers (just as a laser beam has no separate "light-particles").
The other superconductors which have been discovered to date have separate charge carriers: Although the charge-carriers must have the same energy to convey a supercurrent, this does not require from them that they form a Bose-Einstein condensate. Localised electron-states within a material can also have the same energy even though they are fermions. This collection of charge-carriers is not a "coherent-wave" like a laser beam or the superconducting phase I can generate by entangling many electrons. When superconduction occurs by the movement of actual charge-carriers they are separate entities which move in a correlated manner. This is made possible by Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time and not because the charge-carriers have formed a coherent wave.
I don't see that happening. I see a probability function and either it collapses or a universe is chosen. It works cleaner with the Many-Worlds model.
No. Complementarity is a poor conception in my view. Its all a probability function. Not two properties but one. Not a particle or a wave just a probability function. Kind of like Fuzzy Logic. One property that can be expressed in more than one way at least to our thinking.
Valinarus covered that in his post. I agree with him. You really don't understand at all if you don't understand that. So to give you a clue:
The uncertainty of any particle or group of particles is dependent on the mass of the particle. The greater the mass the greater the certainty. The electron has one two-thousandth of the mass of a proton. So its probability wave is spread out over a larger volume of space than a proton.
I learned that in high school physics in 1968. Its not exactly post grad stuff these days. Sure I didn't actually believe it then but I have since discovered the meaning of synchrotron radiation and now accept it.
Not if you go with complementarity as you did above. Choose one or the other. Said he who doesn't. I use whatever model seems to best fit the situation. Its just probabilities and the model chosen is a tool for understanding them.
Just boson like behavior.
No. By reactions from the lattice. Dynamic reactions.
This is your own idea. Its not supported by evidence.
Why should I explain that to you since you said it? Sorry but maybe I missed a lot. I don't see where that came from. Perhaps you could post a link. To something I that isn't from you. Or Alexa, Yep, Zephir, or any of the other people that can't be trusted to make any sense. Sorry but Alexa has used stuff from you and it made no sense. So it has to be from someone that does.
So if that is standard why can't I find it. Post a link. Same request for competence as above.
What static field? There is CURRENT. Its dynamic.
Inertia is Newton's and not from Galileo. And inertia isn't involved in QM. At all, unless they find the Higg's Boson. If it isn't found QM has a serious hole in it.
You really don't have a clue do you? The position of an electron and its momentum are never known simultaneously. Newton is long dead. Your idea is stillborn.
Ethelred
Velanarris, He has claimed superconduction in a vacuum via a Bose-Einstein condensate at room temperature. He claims them together.
I just figured out who he is. Alexas posted a link in a previous discussion. I am afraid I tore it apart and I stand by what I said then. Bad science and zero evidence of superconduction. Just a long string of dubious suppositions supported by no experiments concluding in a bizzare claim of superconduction in a VACUUM.
The diamond%u2013vacuum interface: II. Electron extraction from n-type diamond: evidence for superconduction at room temperature
Johan F Prins 2003 Semicond. Sci. Technol. 18 S131-S140
http://www.iop.or...18/3/319
That has some seriously strained concepts. Its no wonder he posted this on the thread you linked to:
I can attack his physics. I did already in the discussion with Alexa.
http://www.physor...523.html
I had no idea that the author was posting on this site. I have to stand by what I said in my critique.
Sorry Johan but I think you are wrong in a lot of ways. Even if you weren't wrong the technique you used had no commercial applicability. The world isn't going to bend to your desires. You have to PROVE superconduction and not claim it happened by based on a series of dependent speculations about what was going on. Especially if those speculations appear to have a special version of physics that is only known to you.
Ethelred
That's not supportable under any framework other than AWT and it's basis in Newtonian physics.
Also you're missing a really big flaw in your ideology. In a BEC the wave packets of each atom, probability of location in a given area, begin to overlap. In a condensate the wave packets have become so broad that they overlap to the extent that the identity of each is indistinguishable.
To state that a laser is a BEC is an inncorrect application as although the photons may become entangled under certain circumstances, they are still in fact distinguishable from one another as has been proven experimentally several times.
The confusion you're encountering with BEC frameworks are due to the fact that you're disregarding some of the basic tennets of QM and assuming that the HUP dictates all aspects of the system. You're completely missing what the actual attempt to create a BEC is. Creating a BEC entails removing a suffcient amount of energy from the matter involved as to bring it to the point of "breaking down" into component energy, effectively taking a collapsed wave form and returning it's wave properties while maintaining the properties of mass and physical interaction.
Incorrect, a BEC is a conglomeration of absolutely identical probability waves, paired electrons do not exhibit this behavior as "paired" electrons do not overlap. 1 paired electron allows you determine the resultant probability of the wave form of other. This is very basically known as indirect measurement and this is why you can determine the characteristics of 1 wave form if you have some knowledge of it's paired form without violating the HUP.
A Bose-Einstein condensate would have no conduction ability, let alone be super conducting as the conditions of a BEC mean that there is no set of interconnected wave forms through which the energy can travel, and by all rights, adding any energy to a BEC causes the BEC to cease to exist and regain it's former individual wave characteristics.
It is not just a probability function If it were, it would mean that when I use a very small apparatus to measure the "position of a particle" and the "probabilty function is much larger than the apparatus, then the wave can collapse at any point within the wave's intensity: Thus also those points outside the apparatus. This is obviously nonsensicale. To observe the particle, the wave must collapse at the position of the apparatus. Thus the position of collapse is jointly determined by the apparatus and the intensity of the wave. The interaction takes place when there is a resonance between the wave and the apparatus. The wave will have a greater probability to resonate at those positions hwere its intensity is highest.
We at least agree that complemenrarity is BS! But why stick to a "fuzzy" "probability function". If its is all "a function" (which I wholeheartedly agree with) why can it not be a wave which like all other waves change its shape and size when its boundary conditions change. When making a measurement one changes the boundary conditions and therefore the wave "collapses" (no BS required like multiple universes). In fact it is not just able collapse instanateneously but can also inflate instantaneously: for example when an atomic transition occurs from a lower-energy electron-orbital to a higher-energy orbital (what Bohr called a quantum jump". This probably explains Alan Guth's inflation.
I already understood this long before you were born. It was just the way the question was put. so I will not dwell on this any longer
I do NOT go with complemetarity since there are no particles only waves. What we model as particles are localised waves. As already answered above the wave-function cannot be a probability distribution since it will then collapse anywhere no matter how one measures its position.
Here you are wrong. This is not the case in the conventional low- and high temperature superconductors. It only happens for the superconductor that I have discovered when electrons form a single macro wave akin to a lase beam.
The phonons being exchanged are transient and thus represent transien polarisation of the lattice.
I Never claimed that it was not my model. It is supposrted by ALL the published data on superconduction and it explains aspects which models like BCS etc. cannot. It models superconduction in the ceramics as well as the low temperature metals
A link: Unfortunately I do not have my son's primary school physics books anymore. But try "Physics for Scientists and engineers" by Serway. It might be too advanced for you but try. Seway explains physics very well: Even you might follow him!
The fact is that a sudden jump in the electronic heat capacity requires the electrons to absorb more energy per degree. But according to BCS one has that just above the critical temperature the electron-spectrum is exactly the same as just below the critical temperature. This is so since at the critical temperature the binding energy of the electron-pairs is zero. So why will the heat capacity suddenle icrease if there is not a sudden gap forming in the electron spectrum?
Try Serway or any other first year yext book on physics
When you switch in a superconducting element within a circuit and the superconductor is above the critical temperature there is a staic electric field within the supercopnductor which drives the steady-sate current. When you cool through the critical temperature this static field is immediately cancelled. No mdel to date can explain how this happens. Now don't be foolish and try and argue that it must be so from Ohm's law. Ohm's law is not defined for zero resistivity.
Galileo was the first to ppoint out that a body on the surface of the earth can be stionary relative to earth while the earth is moving: This is inertia. Newtin quantified this concept in terms of mass. Schroedinger's eauation has mass in it so it is inherently built on the concept of inertia which requires simultaneous knowledge of the postion and momentum of any particle with mass
After spending billions they will find the Higg's boson even though like the vector bosons it does not exist.
Do you think YOU have a clue? I insulted you back, but I do not believe it is neccessary to be insulting when discussing physics. Logic is more important
Can you give me a link so that I can read the poppycock which yopu claim is "tearing me apart"
Bad science? No experiments. The experiments are clearly described. Did nyopu attempt to repeat it? My my you must be quite a visionary to be so cocky for somebody who proved above that you do not even know first year physics!
It is five years and nobody has publsihed a papaer to prove me wrong! In the meantime I have repeated the experiment and am now generating room-temperature superconducting layers which operate in a air.
I ask again: have you done the experiment or are you just like the vatican who argued that they do not need a sun-centered Universe since Ptolemy's model works well enough?:
It is your right to think that I am wrong, but since you are not God (although it is clear that you think you are) your opinion does not prove me wrong. If you are able to understand semicondutor physics of electronic interfaces you will realise that I have proved superconduction at room temperature. I am not expecting the world to bend to me but for scientists to be open-minded.
When I am vindicated one day will you be willing to go public and apologise?
Yet it has the potential to resonate anywhere.
This is also false. It means that under direct observation the probability distribution will shrink to a single point. This is fairly straightforward in explanation.
As you say, there are no particles, only waves.
Now this is where we diverge.
As I say, there are no particles, only waves, until the system is observed at which point in time the probability wave form peaks at the localized observation bringing a particle out of a wave through wave form collapse. This is basic QM.
I'm going to give you a chance to explain this to me. If your transfer medium is a BEC what proof do you have for super conductivity if you cannot distinguish one wave from another? Effectively a BEC can never be super conductive as when you add energy, it ceases to be a BEC and the wave forms diverge and regain their individuality.
Which means it cannot be applied to QM functions.
As for the Higgs boson, I doubt we'll find one as I have an alternate framework as well. Difference is I don't ignore current physical observations.
And I would like to see this from methodology to math, the whole thing. At which time I'll give your theories more merit, however, at this time I cannot see how they're feasible.
To give an answer to all your argumenst would require a long discussion. Threfore I will not answer your arguments one by one here. If we can get together for an intense discussion I am sure that I can satisfy all your queries. I, however, realised that I have confused you just as much with the way I used "entanglement" than you have confused me with your one-liner about mass.
So what I am going to do is to take us back to the double slit diffraction of an electron. According to the probability interpretation, a single electron can only add to the diffraction pattern if we do not "know" through which slit it has moved. Surely this implies that the "probability wave" must then have two equal fractions moving through both slits? But these two fractions represent a single electron so they must be in instantaneous contact with each other. This means they are "entangled". Thus entanglement should be interpreted as two fractions of a single wave-entity that is in instantaneous contact with each other.
This must be so since when detecting through which slit an electron has moved, one must do a measurement. The wave has to "collapse". It has a 50/50 probability to collapse and record its presence as if it moved through one or the other slit. A stupid observer will thus conclude that "the electron" only moves through a single slit. But since the wave has collapsed it does not exist of two fractions anymore: Therefore there is no diffraction pattern.
If there is no measurement to determine through which slit ann electrons has moved, the two "probability" lobes move on and interfere so that the wave arrives at the observation screen consisting of even more than two fractions; which must still be in immsdiate contact with each other. When the wave resonates with an "observer" atom within the screen it collapses to be observed at the position of the observer atom. The wave is more likely to resonate at positions where its intensity is high: Therefore, after many identical electrons have passed through the slits the diffraction pattern appears.
When two electrons entangle, they form a single enity-wave which can also split into two fractions which are in instantaneous contact with each other. These two fractions are NOT the original two electrons. When one makes a measurement on one fraction, the entanglement collapses (just as it does for an electron moving through both slits) and two separate correlated electrons appear. These entities can then not communicate with each other faster than light speed anymore: Just as Einstein has claimed.
To conclude: You stated that: To state that a laser is a BEC is an inncorrect application as although the photons may become entangled under certain circumstances, they are still in fact distinguishable from one another as has been proven experimentally several times."
Where was this proven experimentally? Obviously, when you make a measurement the laser beam can disentangle into separate photons, but this does not mean that the laser-beam consists of separate single photons!
I have only seen your last posting now and will attend to it point-by-point tomorrow. It is late in South South africa at the moment.
Regards,
Johan
The PM system here is acceptable under most circumstances.
I must thank you that you ask logical questions based on existing physics. Physicsts like you are VERY scarce nowadays. You rather get Ethelreds who think that they are "Gods" who know everything and must thus protect existing dogma in any way possible. If you want to see one of the ugliest examples of this mentality, visit the blogg of Bob Parks.
It is not possible to observe collapses outside your measuring apparatus; thus there cannot be experimental evidence that it happens. Of course if the wave does not resonate with your apparatus it can move on to collapse when observed by another apparatus: But the latter collapse is not generated by the initial apparatus.
Provided that there is "something" it can resonate with.
The wave function can only shrink into a point when it is observed by an apparatus which has the size of a point. Such an apparatus does not exist. The wave function collapses when the boundary conditions presented by the appratus with which it resonates require it to become smaller in position space. If the boundary conditions require it to become larger, if will inflate, and if required it can even fragment into pieces which stay in immediate contact with each other (the wave is an entangled enity). This happens during diffraction of a single-electron wave.
It seems that we agree that a "particle" is a localised wave and not a "particle" in the sense of classical mechanics. A "localised particle-wave" has a centre-of-mass which must be stationary within its own inertial refrence frame: i.e. both its position and momentum are known simultaneously. A force accelerates the localised wave according to Ehrenfest's theorem.
Congratulations: Excellent logic; You are correct that when injecting an electron into a single (Bose-Einstein) macro-wave it will increase its energy. What you forgot is that Heisenberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time allows this to happen for a limited time-interval. Thus when injecting an electron at one end of the superconducting phase, the wave has a time interval after which it must eject an electron on the other side. The electron entering the Bose-Einsten condensate immediately loses its identity since it entangles with the macro-wave. Thus the charge is transferred without the actual movement of the electron from the injection contact to the target contact. Charge-transfer is non-local. This insight led me to realise that charge transfer within superconducting materials which have charge-carriers must also be governed by Heisnberg's uncertainty relationship for energy and time: i.e. a charge-carrier borrows energy for a limited time to move to the position of the next charge carrier which then borrows energy etc. Since the kinetic energy for the movement of charge-carriers is on loan, it does not dissipate to generate heat. It is ONLY for this reason that superconduction is at all possible. By the way, my model explains all the datat which have been published on superconduction to date PLUS data that the BCS model canno: For example, why there are metals in which the isotope effect does not manifest.
When an electron interacts with other materials, Schroedinger's equation is a good approximation. It is not, however, applicable to a free solitary electron since the rest mass of such an electron must surely be the ground-state energy of the electron-wave. It is absurd to use a wave equation to calculate the rest mass while using the rest mass as input. The wave equation for a free solitary electron cannot be the equations of either Schroedinger or Dirac. Another wave equation is required which should follow from Eisntein's general theory of relativity. This theory should provide the boundary conditions which cause the wave-function of a free solitary wave to stay localised and thus have a centre of mass and a zero momentum of this centre of mass.
Where have I ignored current physical observations? All I am doing is to interpret them in a diffrent manner just like Galileo interprted the universe in a different manner that Ptolemy had done. And just as you must be doing if you came to the conclusion that the Hogg's boson does not exist. So please don't spoil your admirable objectivity by accusing me falsely!
Great: That is how a true scientist must talk. It is refreshing after all the BS I had to endure during the last 8 years. If you are willing to let me know who you are so that I know I can really trust you, I will supply you with all the information I have. And if you can shoot me down, I will still be grateful since it will stop me from wasting my time. My direct e-mail is johanprins@cathodixx.com
I have not yet heard from you!?
Odd I haven't heard back. I'll resend.