TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Gamma rays from the Milky Way's core look ever more like signs of dark matter

51 点作者 universe520超过 9 年前

6 条评论

emu超过 9 年前
Treat this article with skepticism. I think the journalist has badly misjudged the current consensus in the field when they say:<p>&quot;There are still a few die-hards who do not believe in hooperons. They suggest that if an ensemble of millisecond pulsars (dead stars that rotate hundreds of times a second) were buried in the Milky Way’s middle, that might do the trick.&quot;<p>The way I hear it, a population of new point sources is a better match for the Fermi data than dark matter --- the excess is &quot;clumpy&quot;, indicating point sources, when you would expect a dark matter signal to be diffuse.
cgriswald超过 9 年前
My high school physics professor had a motto: &quot;Good enough is not good enough.&quot; This was generally in response to the imprecision of lazy students who would say to themselves or their lab partners, &quot;Good enough.&quot; It&#x27;s something I&#x27;ve carried with me in life in a lot of contexts.<p>So it was fun seeing Dr. Goodenough&#x27;s name in the article.
评论 #10550701 未加载
评论 #10550499 未加载
hoodoof超过 9 年前
I know this betrays my ignorance but it just seems that dark matter is a rather implausible explanation for the apparent evidence of additional gravitational force being exerted.<p>&quot;must outweigh familiar, atomic, matter by about six to one&quot; but despite our best efforts it cannot be detected but there&#x27;s vast amounts of it.<p>It seems to me there must be a better explanation because so far this one (i.e. it&#x27;s there but we just can&#x27;t detect it at all) just doesn&#x27;t make sense.
评论 #10551066 未加载
评论 #10550975 未加载
评论 #10550935 未加载
评论 #10550826 未加载
评论 #10550769 未加载
评论 #10551928 未加载
评论 #10550871 未加载
mirimir超过 9 年前
Also see <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;dark-matter-explosions-at-milky-way-core&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scientificamerican.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;dark-matter-explos...</a><p>Edit: I find this 2011 paper, but nothing newer: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1010.2752v3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1010.2752v3.pdf</a><p>Maybe someone can point to their latest stuff.
pc2g4d超过 9 年前
&quot;and particle physicists will have six times more stuff to study than they had before.&quot;<p>Can anyone out there explain this statement for us non-physicists?
评论 #10550619 未加载
评论 #10550594 未加载
评论 #10550618 未加载
poelzi超过 9 年前
Dark Matter is apparently 84.54% of our Universe. If this is so abandoned, why did the millions we spend looking for it did not yield anything ?<p>Lets see:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;physics&#x2F;0612201.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;physics&#x2F;0612201.pdf</a> <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1004.0716v3.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;pdf&#x2F;1004.0716v3.pdf</a><p>If you go through the list of papers on the Michelson-Morley experiment, you will see that it is not that clear. In fact, they did a lot of things wrong then. Averaged values that should have not been, missing information about the movement of the solar system around the galaxy core (~360 km&#x2F;s), gas mode instead of vacuum,...<p>There are many critical papers published over the years:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;find&#x2F;all&#x2F;1&#x2F;all:+AND+michelson+morley&#x2F;0&#x2F;1&#x2F;0&#x2F;all&#x2F;0&#x2F;1?skip=0&amp;query_id=d6e27eb164d5921a" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;find&#x2F;all&#x2F;1&#x2F;all:+AND+michelson+morley&#x2F;0&#x2F;1&#x2F;0&#x2F;...</a><p>This is a very nice list of better experiments, looking into those is very interesting:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.helical-structures.org&#x2F;new_evidences&#x2F;modern-ether-drift-exp&#x2F;ether-drift-exp.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.helical-structures.org&#x2F;new_evidences&#x2F;modern-ether...</a><p>Einstein only later understood, that general Relativity without aether is unthinkable (Sidelights on Relativity): &quot;&quot;&quot; Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it. &quot;&quot;&quot;<p>He did not need aether for SR, but GR without aether, simply does not make sense. Also radial waves as predicted by Lord Kelvin and discovered by Tesla are not really understandable without. You can explain many virtual particles by creating a zoo like the standard model did, but radial waves you can&#x27;t.<p>Dark Matter is the aether, without it&#x27;s mass, spiral galaxies and many other cosmological phenomena are not explainable - or at least not classical.<p>The problem with most aether theories is, that they assume it as some sort of superfluid, or some special substance, which both do not make so much sense, as the complexity of the vacuum is simply to great. It must at least implement all virtual particles (β+&#x2F;β-&#x2F;photons&#x2F;...), electric and magnet fields (Hertz &amp; Tesla waves, as both exist),...<p>The BSM-SG model has a completely different aether model, instead of some special substance, it is made of the same building materials as protons&#x2F;electrons, just in a much smaller and different geometric structure.<p>It has only one fundamental force and 2 very simple fundamental particles (balls). It becomes clear, that already quite large crystals, that look like prisms, under this one law of attraction, build a grid that looks like a 3d honey web.<p>In this grid, you can find all the physical properties we can measure. Electric and Magnet Fields, Speed of Light, Photons, Vacuum Fluctuations, Gravity, Coulomb Barrier, Quantum Entanglement, Virtual Particles (without rest-mass)....<p>Of course, many of those are iterations between the extremely complex geometrical structure of electrons&#x2F;protons&#x2F;neutrons and the Cosmic Lattice as its called in BSM-SG.<p>Best physics book I read and most sensible unified theory I have encountered so far:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitation-Unified&#x2F;dp&#x2F;1412083877" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Basic-Structures-Matter-Supergravitati...</a><p>Needs an open mind tho and some months of heavy thinking for really getting into this theory, but once you grasp the basic interactions, geometric structures etc the universe starts to make so much sense. So far, every phenomena I encountered was explainable after some minutes-days of thinking and I always came to the same conclusion as Stoyan Sarg.<p>The universe is classic logical :)
评论 #10552142 未加载