Slashdot Mirror
Dark Matter Discovered Near Solar System?
gpronger writes "The ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter) has potentially discovered the presence of dark matter close (only 3000 light-years) to our solar system. The system detected a large-amount of high energy cosmic rays which match the theoretical signature of dark matter annihilating itself. The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first."
The paper was published in Nature , but it requires a subscription to see beyond the abstract.
Dark Matter sees evidence of YOU.
Huh?
ZOMG, Mom, is that you?
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
wow, on behalf of the winners committee on /. (because of course none of us here are losers), I'd like to present you with this ribbon and a fucking cookie.
Enjoy, and thank you for you contribution to the conversation!!
How amazed would you be to suddenly find that you just forgot what I wrote and you needed to reread my post.... again.
You have a background intensity that is a function of energy, B(E).
Signal intensity is also a function of energy, S(E).
The observed intensity I(E) is B(E) + S(E). The signal portion (observed intensity above background level) peaks at E = 650 GeV. At 800 GeV (and, one would assume, higher), the signal is small enough that the observed intensity is adequately explained only by background.
This must be some meaning of 'close' that I was previously unaware of.
MP3 Search Engine
No.
They have an energy dependent signal.
'fucking cookies' are unpleasantly ambiguous.
MP3 Search Engine
We must have very different notions of close. I personally cannot begin to imagine how one could consider 190 million AU to be close.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
where is the dark antimatter?
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
If this would be the first evidence how can we already have a little evidence of it?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
Over there, next to your regular one.
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
I believe you're thinking of dark energy - it's currently thought to be about 74% of the universe's mass/energy. Roughly 22% is guesstimated to be dark matter, and about 4% is "normal" matter.
...They have an energy dependent signal....
So there is a signal, but what produces it is still only a conjectural speculative interpretation of an observation. From experiments here at home, such radiation is ONLY and ALWAYS produced by charged particles. Instead of dark matter, the radiation could be produced by naturally occurring interstellar or intergalactic particle acceleration. It could even be some space alien's giant version of the LHC. All we observe is lots of radiation, but then they are guessing what produces it. If it is dark matter, then there should also be dark antimatter.
We know from measurements that the sun produces or is involved with an enormous amount of electrical current we call the solar wind. Even though the earth intercepts only a minute fraction of this, some strong outburst of solar electricity has shut down power grids and communication systems.
Even if there is an interstellar electric field of only millvolts per kilometer, the vast distances of space can still accelerate charged particles, mostly electrons, to immense energies. These could produce much radiation when they encounter intense magnetic fields we have observed. Annihilation of any sort is only one other, far less likely possibility.
All theory is gray
The summary misinterprets the results.
The instrument detects high-energy electrons. They found an excess (only 70, but statistically significant) with a particular energy, which if they come from a galactic source (like a pulsar), that source must be within 3000 light years. However, the researchers can't find an appropriate source.
Alternatively, this could be due to annihilating dark matter---the energy spectrum matches some models---but that's not necessarily coming from a particular source.
This is really interesting, I'd never even heard of the studies they were performing until now and I found the link - as spock would say... fascinating. (raise eyebrow at the appropriate time) What a boon for LSU physics department! I guess the school isn't so Mickey Mouse after all... http://www.lsu.edu/
Do these particles travel faster than light? Could it be used as a form of communication? IS it used as a form of communication?
The graph of -(x - 3)^2 + 5 peaks at 3 but rapidly declines bellow by 6
. You are assuming that the numbers were the range of the observations not the domain. that's why is said at 650 GeV not to 650 GeV.
No, their math is just peachy.
A figure like 650 GeV is the energy of ONE cosmic ray. Think of a graph of the number of rays arriving per second versus the energy of the individual rays. You're getting this many 400 GeV rays per second, this many 500 GeV rays, and so on.
What TFA says is that LOTS of 650 GeV rays were arriving from the newly observed source, and hardly any 800 GeV rays except for the background rate that you get from everywhere in the sky.
rj
Unless and until physicists can fully explain the true mechanism of movement in language that the layperson can understand, I'll remain highly skeptical of their more outlandish conclusions (black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, parallel universes, etc.), sorry.
How do you expect the explanations in layman's terms to be any different than what we use now (what goes up must come down, at equilibrium every action has an equal and opposite reaction, object at rest stays at rest until acted upon, etc. etc. etc.)? These are extremely complex phenomena that, if described in layman's terms, cannot be accurately portrayed.
I bet you believe in creationism too, huh?
I understand the argument you're making, it's the old 'if it's a horse, it's a horse; not a zebra' argument. However, physicists are not willy-nilly declaring stuff dark matter because that's what they want to find. There is actually a lot of hard-core science to support what you call
outlandish conclusions(black holes, wormholes, dark matter, dark energy, big bang, parallel universes, etc.)
The fact that YOU don't understand it is more a statement about yourself, not the science.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
hi,
a ~650 GeV parent would, in a final state including leptons,
possibly be in reach of ATLAS and CMS at LHC if it can be
produced in high-energy quark and/or gluon interactions
cheers,
kevin
Pot calling kettle black. Show me one human being who truly understands the mechanism of movement. Dark matter and dark energy are inventions that physicists conjured up in order to hide the fact that their current theory of gravity (GR) is falsified. That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
I still believe that 'dark matter' is only a temporary constant inserted into an equation modern scientists don't truly understand.
In time they will discover what is causing the effects of this 'dark matter' - it will not be super strange matter, nor another form of matter, but will be either a change in the overall calculations of our universe's energy or it will be some type of substance that was not accounted for.
Theorists throw in some offbeat number to the calculation every 30 years or so to account for what they just can't figure out.
These are extremely complex phenomena that, if described in layman's terms, cannot be accurately portrayed.
Unless you had an Etch A Sketch handy. In which case, so accurate, you have created a new, carbon copy universe on the screen.
I record my sleeptalking
I think I've seen you make this comment before.
As before, this radiation is not solely produced by charged particles.
And what precisely is the observation or experiment that falsifies General Relativity?
Here's another link to full article. It's quite scientific, not for your average slashdot reader.. :/
Check out Pandora by Music Genome Project
Big deal. I find dark matter every time I turn out the lights.
This is science?
Not that I'm trying to defend the parent poster (because I disagree with him), but while I'll say that GR is not truly falsified, but it is probably incomplete. The biggest problems are quantum gravity and spacetime singularities. See this discussion, which includes details about Hawking radiation, black holes, dark matter and so forth.
My blog
I have some dark matter under my bed. I don't really know what it is without shining a light under there. I only know it's there because when I try to cram in more stuff, it bumps into the dark matter. Silly isn't it? What's more silly is that this is exactly how astronomers classify dark matter. Something they think is there but aren't sure because they can't see it.
Dark matter is not magic. It could be an asteroid belt of non-glowing rocks. That would totally count according to the definition, and is actually one of the more likely explanations of what 'dark matter' really is. It's not all that mysterious. And anyway, it's all based on some mathematical calculation of how much mass they think is floating around in space. If the math is wrong, the whole thing could be a complete fantasy. So no big deal, really.
In defense of the parent, math with dark matter can be hard. Dark matter is so dense, each pound of it weighs over ten thousand pounds!
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Dude, seriously, read up on electroweak theory. You're so 1960's.
Range Voting: preference intensity matters
The universe is believed to be composed of about 25% dark matter, but there has been little evidence of it. This discovery, if correct, would be the first.
No it would be evidence of "a large amount of high energy cosmic rays".
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
It's in my massive muscular physique!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99m
There are lots of reactions that produce EM radiation. This one is used in medical imaging. Positron-electron annihilation also creates gamma rays. Yes, those are charged particles, but the gammas are not produced by the charges moving. That reaction is also used every day in medical imaging.
All these resources available on the Internet and you can't even educate yourself. Such a waste.
Considering there are gazillions of galaxies, and each of them are farther than our own galaxy's center, it is damn close.
Think of it this way: 3000 lightyears means, if that dark matter comes this direction maximum speed (at the speed of light), we have only 3000 years to try and avoid it.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
on a secondary note, I wonder if the solar system has passed through several "clouds" of this stuff during its lifetime? Could explain major die-offs on Earth...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Are you for real? I can't see or feel carbon dioxide, it must be a myth! Things don't wait for our technology to catch up to them before they start existing, just because we couldn't see bacteria until we invented microscopes doesn't mean they didn't exist before then.
I can't get past the paywall to see how many sigmas they put on the detection event, but I seriously doubt the situation is as simple as you claim. I personally find it unlikely they would get published in Nature with a signal that is statistically indistinguishable from background noise. Unfortunately, I can't read the paper to see what they did. I'm not a particle astrophysicist, but you don't mention at all what the error bars are; a 150 GeV difference can be big or small depending on how precise the measurement is. The location of the peak is also not the only factor which you can use in detection; the height and shape of the I(E) curve matters, as well as the time signature (light curve). Quite possibly they found a real source. Whether that source is dark matter is another issue.
Savain isn't a creationist, but he is a well-known physics crackpot. He's been promoting his B.S. for over a decade; just search the 1990s archives of the Usenet sci.physics.* groups. He emotionally can't accept the mathematical notion of spacetime, because he claims that "nothing can move in spacetime", which only proves that he misunderstands the whole concept. (Thus his claim above that physicists have been unable to explain the concept of "movement".) He usually then proceeds with long, profane rants against various respected physicists. You know you're on the receiving end of a classic Savain rant when he starts raving about "chickenshit voodoo physicists".
Not only is he 1960's, he's a troll from the 60's. No need to feed the trolls.
Sure, but Nibbler doesn't care about the math.
rj
Uh, annihilation radiation? Radioactive decay? They're pretty well known.
Peaking at 650G and then declining to 800G?
Did TFA just royally f**k up its math or something?
The Author's assume that a reader of the article would be scientifically astute enough to realize that were referring to the number of detections over a spectrum of energies; in your case they were overly optimistic.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
That's all. When they truly understand gravity and movement, then they'll have a leg to stand on. In the meantime, it's no better than creationism.
Whoa there!
Let's be crystal clear on this. There is plenty of evidence for various aspects of GR. If you really want, you can mess around with Modified Newtonian Dynamics, but, to quote the wiki article on GR, it's 'the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data'.
What do you mean 'truly understand gravity and movement'? If you mean predict how objects will move under gravity with unparalleled precision, then I think we're already there. I'm not sure what else science could tell you. I'm not a big dark matter/energy fan either, but if all observations agree with their existence, so do I.
xterm -n 8
...electroweak theory....
So now tell me where the ELECTRO part of this comes in? Does that not come from electron? What is an electron? Does it have a charge? What happens if that charge moves, specifically is accelerated as it flies out of a decaying atom and runs into something, like another atom or a magnetic field produced by other moving electrons? Has what happens in an atom that decays by this electroweak interaction changed since the 1960s or did it not exist before then? Obviously, electroweak is included in the operation of the ENTIRE universe. The laws of physics operate in the same manner here at home and in the most distant galaxy.
All theory is gray
I'm not sure I understand your reply. Did you read the parent post? I was just explaining that their signal is I(E). The wording of the summary was confusing some people.
You are correct, though -- it's highly unlikely they'd be published in Nature without having a statistically significant deviation from background. They'd at the very least need to have found a real source, and they'd have to have a good argument that that source is dark matter.
What other KNOWN way is there to produce ELECTROmagnetic radiation, except with electrons? What other way is there to produce a magnetic field besides and electric current?
How about spinning atomic nucleus, alpha radiation or proton beams? In solid state electronics holes are common carriers of electromagnetic force, the holes are actually missing electrons so they are essentially nothing! Just about anything involving gamma ray photons have more energy than can be produce by electron/positrons.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
gamma-decay The gamma rays are just high-energy photons, of order 100 keV to a few MeV. Emission of gamma rays is similar (but at much higher energies) to emission of photons by excited states of atoms. The nucleus can be excited by having just emitted an alpha or beta, or by colliding with another nucleus, or being bombarded by neutrons, say. All these events can lead to a nucleus in which the charge distribution is oscillating, and electromagnetic radiation ensues.
Same idea for the positron - electron collision - those are clearly not at rest. /. is not as funny as it once was and I miss those days.
If you choose to correct Prof. Fowler on his understanding of nuclear physics I hope you will post the dialog here;
I think I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying that a peak at 650 GeV is statistically indistinguishable from a background peak at 800 GeV. After re-reading it a couple of times, it looks like you're saying that the signal is distinguishable from background at 650 GeV where it peaks, but not at 800 GeV.
Its a cloaked bird of prey's exhaust! FIRE!!!
what is an electron?
Long Answer; It's a thingy with a specific rest mass, a specific charge, a specific spin and when you smack it really hard it breaks into reasonable predictable pieces that don't look much like the original thingy called an electron.
Short Answer; We don't have a clue but we delude ourselves into thinking we know more than we do.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
how do you weigh out a pound that weighs ten thousand pound?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Perhaps English is not your first language, but "I have little sympathy for fools and Republicans" means that I have no sympathy for them. "I have a little money" means I do have some money, just not a lot.
(Incidentally, there's plenty of evidence for dark matter.)
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
In a universe where as many as 18 dimensions may exist and neutrino oscillate in flavor as the move, I'll bet there are still some deep questions about movement and gravity that'll earn some team a Nobel or two.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
What does it mean to "truly" understand something? (I would claim that we "truly" understand nothing -- we don't even understand ourselves.)
That's not how science works. You observe reality, you come up with a mathematical model (a hypothesis or theory) that fits the observations, and you test your hypothesis by making predictions and seeing if your hypothesis still looks good. Individual people may say things about what they feel they understand, but not being them, you don't know what their experience of "understanding" is.
GR and QM have been fantastically accurate models, much better than anything else we've ever come up with. Consequences of QM and GR once thought to be outlandish and obviously wrong have been shown to be fact -- repeatedly. That your mind can't admit these concepts means nothing.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
just assume that dark mater exists in a way that is only able to interact with matter and antimatter through gravity and you'll be close enough for a layman.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Everyone knows very well that dark matter alone is to blame when we face inflation, and printing presses are totally innocent.
...electroweak theory....
So now tell me where the ELECTRO part of this comes in? Does that not come from electron?
No. It comes from electric charge. Its not just electrons that have electric charge. Geez, read some physics.
What is an electron? Does it have a charge? What happens if that charge moves, specifically is accelerated as it flies out of a decaying atom and runs into something, like another atom or a magnetic field produced by other moving electrons? Has what happens in an atom that decays by this electroweak interaction changed since the 1960s or did it not exist before then? Obviously, electroweak is included in the operation of the ENTIRE universe. The laws of physics operate in the same manner here at home and in the most distant galaxy.
How do you know that they are the same here and in the far corners of the Universe. Short answer is: you don't. Its an assumption we make.
Correct. That's what the article is saying -- it peaks at 650 GeV, and by 800 GeV is indistinguishable from background.
...How do you know that they are the same here and in the far corners of the Universe...
We have observational evidence carried by the radiations from the distant regions of the universe, that rules of electricity and atomic behavior is as it is in your backyard.
(...No. It comes from electric charge..)
Technically you are of course right. The word electron comes from the Greek word for "amber" because they observed that a piece of amber, when rubbed would attract small particles. Any time a charge is accelerated photons are produced.
All theory is gray
...How do you know that they are the same here and in the far corners of the Universe...
We have observational evidence carried by the radiations from the distant regions of the universe, that rules of electricity and atomic behavior is as it is in your backyard.
(...No. It comes from electric charge..)
Now you are using the same arguments that yo say are wrong in the case of dark matter. Stop contradicting yourself.
Technically you are of course right. The word electron comes from the Greek word for "amber" because they observed that a piece of amber, when rubbed would attract small particles. Any time a charge is accelerated photons are produced.
While true, this is not the ONLY source of high-energy photons, which you claim.
...While true, this is not the ONLY source of high-energy photons,...
Beside than an accelerating charge, what other source of electromagnetic radiation is there that we know of?
All theory is gray
But (!), that's not what the poster I originally replying to was saying. He was claiming that because we don't know everything, that we know nothing. Completely false. We may not know everything, but we can place some pretty tight tolerances on what the predictions of a complete (or just more complete) theory must say about the world under an awful lot of conditions.
General Relativity and the Standard model are too accurate in too many places. We know that a better theory to replace them nearly has to predict almost the exactly the same things that they do. Any more complete theory has to predict (or otherwise explain why experiments to test for these phenomena appear to be positive) in a VERY rigorous way all kinds of phenomena. And that includes "weird stuff" like the things that clearly make the GGP in the thread doubt physic's understanding. Thing's like:
1. The phenomena of Wave/Particle Duality.
2. Constant Speed of Light for all observers.
3. Time Dilation
None of these things, and a host of other "weird stuff" that makes ignorant lay people think modern physics is full of shit are going anywhere.
4% observable, 22% dark matter, 74% dark energy ratio sounds like what some experts say about the usage of our own minds, where only a supposed 10% is applicable. Hm? Perhaps like a seedling in a dark hole, vying for light, we will use 74% dark energy to thrust ourselves through 22% dark matter to sprout into a wonderfully growing entity! How fab! Just like our ten percent brainpower, wading through 90% subconcious, only to find out Freud was somewhat of a fraud. Hm?
Mass Effect is coming true!!!!!!!
Direct production in hadronic interactions. Decay of neutral pions. Seriously, you need to catch up with physics.
...Seriously, you need to catch up with physics....
From Wikipedia:
"Electron-positron annihilation occurs when an electron and a positron (the electron's anti-particle) collide. The result of the collision is the conversion of the electron and positron and the creation of gamma ray photons or, less often, other particles. The process must satisfy a number of conservation laws, including:
Conservation of charge. The net charge before and after is zero.
Conservation of linear momentum and total energy. This forbids the creation of a single gamma ray.
Conservation of angular momentum.
As with any two charged objects, electrons and positrons may also interact with each other without annihilating, in general by elastic scattering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pions
Neutral pion decays
The 0 meson has a slightly smaller mass of 135.0 MeV/c2 and a much shorter mean life of 8.4×1017 seconds. It decays due to electromagnetic force. The main decay mode (98.798%) is into two photons...
Still, positrons and electrons are CHARGED objects which are accelerated as they collide. Their charges cancel out and the energy is carried away in ELECTROmagnetic radiation. The electric interaction, NOT gravity nor the strong nuclear force are involved. ANYTIME and ALWAYS, when photons are produced, since they are a phenomenon of the ELECTRIC interaction, they come from a charged object in accelerating motion.
A neutral pion decays "due to electromagnetic force."
Therefore, electrical charge interaction is the source of the radiation observed. Fictional dark matter need not apply. The same goes for black holes, neutron stars and other esoteric objects theorized to exist in galaxies far, far away, but nowhere around here, closer to home. All those objects and constructs are modern scientific fairy tales fit for a Star-Wars movie. The Universe operates by a combination of well tested electrical and gravitational laws. Every single actual observation we make, can be adequately explained by their operation. Present cosmological theories, as beautiful mathematically they may be, are obviously in need of serious revision. Making the observed data fit a theory is NOT science, but the theory must fit the data.
That was my original point.
All theory is gray
Still, positrons and electrons are CHARGED objects which are accelerated as they collide. Their charges cancel out and the energy is carried away in ELECTROmagnetic radiation. The electric interaction, NOT gravity nor the strong nuclear force are involved.
Pion decay is NOT due to accelerating charges. Pions decay even at REST.
ANYTIME and ALWAYS
Plain wrong. Ask any particle physicist about direct production of photons in hadronic interactions.
when photons are produced, since they are a phenomenon of the ELECTRIC interaction, they come from a charged object in accelerating motion.
Now you are contradicting yourself again. Photons from neutral pion decays do not come from "accelerating motion".
A neutral pion decays "due to electromagnetic force."
Still has nothing to do with acceleration.
Therefore, electrical charge interaction is the source of the radiation observed. Fictional dark matter need not apply. The same goes for black holes, neutron stars and other esoteric objects theorized to exist in galaxies far, far away, but nowhere around here, closer to home.
You need to check in with modern observations.
All those objects and constructs are modern scientific fairy tales fit for a Star-Wars movie.
Sadly for you, your story is even worse.
The Universe operates by a combination of well tested electrical and gravitational laws.
And fittingly you leave out strong interactions. You are just plain laughable.
Every single actual observation we make, can be adequately explained by their operation.
It is sad that you do not realize this is self-contradictory. Here you say that it can be fully explained, but below you say we have to revise the math.
Present cosmological theories, as beautiful mathematically they may be, are obviously in need of serious revision.
There are, as has been pointed out before to you but you refuse to listen, two options: 1) missing matter 2) incorrect gravitational theory. Option 2 is far less likely because of the extreme accuracy of relativity in other scenarios.
Making the observed data fit a theory is NOT science, but the theory must fit the data.
That was my original point.
Have you ever read about the history of the neutrino? Please do so! And since you obviously do not understand how the scientific model works, I rest my case.
.. two options: 1) missing matter 2) incorrect gravitational theory...
How about option 3) electrical discharges as part of powerful magnetic and electric fields?
(...And fittingly you leave out strong interactions...)
The strong interaction is not DIRECTLY observable to us, because of the fact that it operates over only very short distances. At cosmic distances we only directly observe the electric force through photons we intercept. We also observe thorough photons the gravitational (inertial) force in how it governs the motions of heavenly bodies. Gravity waves are theorized to exist, but there has so far been no success of detecting or measuring them. Maybe they do exist, but there is no evidence, so far, that they do.
I think we are not really disagreeing, but have a misunderstanding of terms.
Much of present mainstream cosmology is based on two underlying assumptions. 1) That the observed red-shift of distant objects is due to motion (doppler effect) and 2) that gravity alone determines the structure and behavior of the large scale universe. I think that modern data does not support these assumptions. It is not an understanding of atomic physics that is at issue here.
If those two assumptions are tossed, then all the fairy tale cosmological constructs fall away and well understood electrodynamic processes can adequately explain all the actual data we observe.
Food for thought: If there is a pervasive electrical field in space, analogous to the cosmic background radiation, could that explain the incredible energies we measure in cosmic rays? If there is an such an electric field of only a few micro-volts per meter, could such a field accelerate a charged particle to the energies we observe? We could never directly measure such a small electric field.
Space probe data indicates that the energy of the electrons of the solar wind INCREASES slightly as they get further away from the sun. That means the existence of an accelerating force. There may be localized regions in space with vastly greater fields. Could these fields not accelerate electrons and other charged particles to high energies? If these high energy electrons then get deflected by the magnetic fields known to exist around stars and planets, would they not also emit plenty of synchrotron radiation which we have interpreted as evidence for black holes? Furthermore, do we know of a way of generating a magnetic field without an electric current or more correctly, the movement of charge?
All theory is gray
.. two options: 1) missing matter 2) incorrect gravitational theory...
How about option 3) electrical discharges as part of powerful magnetic and electric fields?
No, electric charge does not give rise to mass nor interact gravitationally.
(...And fittingly you leave out strong interactions...)
The strong interaction is not DIRECTLY observable to us, because of the fact that it operates over only very short distances.
Again, particle physicists around the world disagree with you, strongly!
At cosmic distances we only directly observe the electric force through photons we intercept.
Again, this is based on your misconception about what produces photons. And again, its electroweak, not electric interaction.
We also observe thorough photons the gravitational (inertial) force in how it governs the motions of heavenly bodies.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass are two different things. Gravitational interaction does not produce photons.
Gravity waves are theorized to exist, but there has so far been no success of detecting or measuring them. Maybe they do exist, but there is no evidence, so far, that they do.
Correct. Interesting how you can accept the hypothesis of gravitational waves, which is a consequence of relativity theory, which you on the other hand have dismissed when saying that there are no black holes and cosmology is wrong.
I think we are not really disagreeing,
Oh yes we are, as is most of the community.
but have a misunderstanding of terms.
No. But you have a misunderstanding of physics as it stands today.
Much of present mainstream cosmology is based on two underlying assumptions. 1) That the observed red-shift of distant objects is due to motion (doppler effect)
Cosmological red shift is not the same as the Doppler effect
and 2) that gravity alone determines the structure and behavior of the large scale universe. I think that modern data does not support these assumptions.
Which is because you do not understand the data.
It is not an understanding of atomic physics that is at issue here.
If those two assumptions are tossed, then all the fairy tale cosmological constructs fall away and well understood electrodynamic processes can adequately explain all the actual data we observe.
Ehm, no!
Food for thought: If there is a pervasive electrical field in space, analogous to the cosmic background radiation, could that explain the incredible energies we measure in cosmic rays?
Ehm, no! Read up on cosmic rays.
If there is an such an electric field of only a few micro-volts per meter, could such a field accelerate a charged particle to the energies we observe? We could never directly measure such a small electric field.
Read up on diffusive shock acceleration.
Space probe data indicates that the energy of the electrons of the solar wind INCREASES slightly as they get further away from the sun.
Reference please.
That means the existence of an accelerating force.
Nothing new.
There may be localized regions in space with vastly greater fields. Could these fields not accelerate electrons and other charged particles to high energies?
Indeed they do. Read up on diffusive shock acceleration and AGN jet physics.
If these high energy electrons then get deflected by the magnetic fields known to exist around stars and planets, would they not also emit plenty of synchrotron radiation
Synchrotron radiation is evidence of relativistic electrons and nothing else.