Scientist have pretty good proof of dark matter!
- Thread starter bigspizz
- Start date
Neat info.
But actually the first evidence was discovered by Edwin Hubble. We also have evidence here on Earth. It is produced in the form of nutrinos at the University of Chicago (not sure if the name is right) and it is detected at the Sudan Underground Nutrino Laboratory in Northern Minnessota in the bottom of an old iron mine. The nutrinos are produced by nuclear fission and shot underground through solid rock through the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnessota. They exit the Earth in the middle of Canada.
But actually the first evidence was discovered by Edwin Hubble. We also have evidence here on Earth. It is produced in the form of nutrinos at the University of Chicago (not sure if the name is right) and it is detected at the Sudan Underground Nutrino Laboratory in Northern Minnessota in the bottom of an old iron mine. The nutrinos are produced by nuclear fission and shot underground through solid rock through the states of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnessota. They exit the Earth in the middle of Canada.
This is the strongest evidance to date! Neutrinos are simply a theory that.....Since they find these particles in such high numbers perhaps they could account for the 97 % of the mass in the universe that is unaccounted for. This however is a picture of dark matter in it self.....no neutrinos, just dark matter. This news conferance will show the importance of the discovery!
bigspizz;853298; said:
Just to clarify, Neutrinos are not a theory; they have been proven to exist. Aproximately seven are detected each day at the Sudan Laboratory. It is still unknown how much neutrinos account for dark matter but they are still classified as dark matter.
And I don't think there is going to be a picture of the dark matter. A picture requires light to be emitted from the dark matter (does not happen) or reflected off of it (theoretically does not happen either). Hubble is not that good
On the NASA page, it states that it will show a mass distribution, which is what Edwin Hubble had theorized and calculated from measurements of the Milky Way. The distribution will probably show visible mass (stars) that are reacting to the mass of the dark matter. Still, that is pretty good evidence. There was mention of two objects, (galaxies or clusters) so the imaging may also involve gravitational lensing. The mass of the objects can be calculated from the light intensity generated and then compared to the mass calculated by the gravitational lensing. The difference of the two will show the mass of the dark matter. It will be interesting what NASA has to say.Oh, by the way, Neutrinos are theorized to exist in three types of waves. I think they were Alpha, Betta, and Gamma waves. Two are regularly detected but the third is much more difficult to detect. They are basing the theoretical amount of dark matter to be Neutrinos on this third wave type. Unfortunately I am not nerdy enough to stay glued to the finer details. I got plenty of nerd in me though 
CHOMPERS;854376; said:Just to clarify, Neutrinos are not a theory; they have been proven to exist. Aproximately seven are detected each day at the Sudan Laboratory. It is still unknown how much neutrinos account for dark matter but they are still classified as dark matter.
And I don't think there is going to be a picture of the dark matter. A picture requires light to be emitted from the dark matter (does not happen) or reflected off of it (theoretically does not happen either). Hubble is not that good
CHOMPERS;854378; said:Oh, by the way, Neutrinos are theorized to exist in three types of waves. I think they were Alpha, Betta, and Gamma waves. Two are regularly detected but the third is much more difficult to detect. They are basing the theoretical amount of dark matter to be Neutrinos on this third wave type. Unfortunately I am not nerdy enough to stay glued to the finer details. I got plenty of nerd in me though
Just to clarify I didn't say neutrinos were a theory, I might not have been clear, I meant "they", as in they exist, are part of the missing universe puzzle.
I know what a neutrino is, for I am nerd enough to study physics,string theory, m theory, diminsions,.
I think perhaps you are getting dark matter and dark energy confused?
You can see dark matter if it transits an object that is known the backround light would be "effected" so our network of telescopes (hubble, chandra, spitzer, to name the major ones) can capture it!
That is NOT how they calculate mass!....Gravatational microlensing (wich is what I think you might have meant?) Is an event where a star transits a star and the back star literally magnifies the closer star making the change calculable.
It does not say it will show a mass distribution......."The RING is the first detection of dark matter with a UNIQUE structure DIFFERENT from the distribution of both the galaxies and the hot gas in the cluster". (NASA NEWS RELEASE 2007)
That means in english you can see an obvious RING that is diff from the sorrounding galaxies or hot gas in the cluster of galaxies. (They mentioned 1 thing ) that is in question.
Long story short there will be a picture!....I yield the rest of my time to the opponent. lol (parli pro inside joke)
ps just for disscussion........ do you guys think electrons exist ??? what do you mean REALLY exist ...its a problem when you say a quantum particle is real......or do you mean that experiments were performed and the results are consistent with a theorectically described quantum particle...does that mean they really exist or theory and experiment are not mutually exclusive ??