Particle Physics


What is Dark Matter?

We know dark matter is out there—but what is it?

An invisible army of black holes? A cosmic graveyard of burned-out stars? A swarm of rogue planets that roam the depths of interstellar space? While examples of objects like these have been observed, we now know that they can’t account for the enormous mass of dark matter required to explain why galaxies rotate so fast. Following Sherlock Holmes’ dictum that once you have ruled out the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the answer, scientists have been forced to conclude that dark matter is an entirely new form of matter, never before observed.

Here is what we think: Every galaxy is engulfed by a cloud of dark matter particles that extends far beyond that galaxy’s visible edge. Each dark matter particle is electrically neutral and has a mass tens or thousands of times that of the familiar proton. Finally, there is a lot of this dark matter. Our best estimate is that there is about five times as much dark matter as there is luminous matter, making our visible universe a thin frosting on a dark matter cake.

But physicists will need to observe dark matter first-hand before anyone should believe it is real. Our search for dark matter takes three distinct approaches: direct, indirect, and production—that is, actually making our own dark matter particles.


The search for dark matter rests on a three-legged stool, with direct, indirect and collider experiments all promising approaches to find it. Credit: Don Lincoln/Fermilab

The direct approach starts with a detector cooled to more than 459 degrees below zero Fahrenehit, so close to absolute zero that the atoms that make up the detector are nearly stationary. The detector is buried as much as a mile underground to protect it from ordinary cosmic rays, high-energy particles that are constantly bombarding the Earth. Though these detectors can’t actually “capture” a dark matter particle, should one happen to pass through and collide with the nucleus of an atom inside the detector, the detector will ring like a bell and the passage of the dark matter particle will be observed.

There are dozens of experiments underway using this approach, including one, called the DAMA (DArk MAtter) experiment, that has made a provocative finding. Scientists think that dark matter flows past the solar system like a wind, so DAMA uses the motion of the Earth around the Sun to winnow out a dark matter signal. For half a year, the Earth is moving into the dark matter wind, and for the other half, it is moving with the wind. Therefore, we expect to see an annual variation in the number of dark matter hits. This is exactly what DAMA has seen for many years now.

The problem is that other experiments which are nominally more sensitive don’t see this annual variation. This has led to considerable confusion and it will take additional work to understand if DAMA has seen the first hints of dark matter or merely an unexplained measurement artifact.

Indirect searches exploit the notion that dark matter might consist of both a matter and antimatter component. If so, occasionally a pair of matter and antimatter dark matter particles might meet and annihilate each other in a flash of gamma rays or matter/antimatter pairs that can be observed by satellites that are designed to detect gamma rays or antimatter in the cosmos. In fact, two such experiments, PAMELA and GLAST, have observed signals that could be the signature of dark matter, but could also have more prosaic explanations. Meanwhile, other experiments see no such signals.

Rather than waiting for dark matter to come to us, though, some physicists are hoping to make their own dark matter right here on Earth. Currently the only particle accelerator capable of making dark matter is the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. By exploiting Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2, we hope to convert the kinetic energy of the beams directly into dark matter. Because dark matter is electrically neutral, it would escape our detectors undetected, but upon adding up the energy contained in all the particles that we can detect, we would notice that the energy books are unbalanced and that some energy is missing.

The scientists working on two of the LHC’s detectors, the ATLAS (A Toroidal Large Apparatus) experiment and my own CMS (Compact Muon Solenoid), are now searching their data tirelessly, looking for collisions with these characteristics. The situation is evolving rapidly as the LHC delivers a torrent of particles to the detectors.

It’s a race between the three different approaches to see which one will be the first to observe a reliable signature of dark matter. No one should be the slightest bit convinced until at least two of the approaches begin to tell a consistent story. One thing is certain; with five times as much dark matter as ordinary matter, the race is on for discovery and Nobel Prize glory.

Go Deeper
Editor’s picks for further reading

CERN Courier: Shedding Light on Dark Matter
In this article, learn how scientists are using the CMS instrument at the LHC to look for signs of dark matter.

NOVA scienceNOW: Dark Matter Mystery
In this video, host Neil deGrasse Tyson reports from a half mile underground in an abandoned mine, where scientists are using special detectors to look for dark matter particles.

Scientific American: Instant Egghead: Dark Matter
Scientific American editor George Musser explains dark matter in 60 seconds using a coffee cup, some crumbs, and a compact disk.

Tell us what you think on Twitter, Facebook, or email.

Don Lincoln

    Don Lincoln is a senior experimental particle physicist at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and an adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame. He splits his research time between Fermilab and the CERN laboratory, just outside Geneva, Switzerland. He has coauthored more than 500 scientific papers on subjects from microscopic black holes and extra dimensions to the elusive Higgs boson. When Don isn’t doing physics research, he spends his time sharing the fantastic world of science with anyone who will listen. He has given public lectures on three continents and has authored many magazine articles, YouTube videos and columns in the online periodical Fermilab Today. His most recent book "The Large Hadron Collider: The Extraordinary Story of the Higgs Boson and Other Stuff That Will Blow Your Mind" tells the tale of the Large Hadron Collider, the physics and the technology required to make it all work, and the human stories behind the hunt for the Higgs boson.

    • What about the unknown result and consequences should we make / create dark matter? I think it’s suicidal science! Until we know what we are creating. Unlike atomic bombs this one can’t be controlled the same.

      • Actually, of this we can be 100% certain that there is no problem. If dark matter exists, there is five times more of it than ordinary matter. In our galaxy, the ratio is even more. There is way, way more dark matter than regular matter. Our galaxy is still here. If dark matter were a danger, we wouldn’t be.

        If dark matter exists, dark matter goes through every minute of your life. Lots of it. Being afraid of dark matter is like being afraid of sunlight or air or plants. It’s around you all the time.

    • Alan Scotch

      If dark matter were a manifestation of the “many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics” what possible experiment could detect it ?

      • Keith Pinster

        If we knew that, there would be no experimental science. That is the whole point of science. What experiment can we possibly use to detect what elements are in the middle of the sun? What experiments can we possibly use to find new plants billions of miles away? What experiment could possibly give us the weight of the earth? Sorry, but these questions are just as ridiculous as yours.

    • Fitch

      Dark matter is just an excuse for bad math based on false assumptions

      • What assumptions do you claim are false? Did you read the earlier dark matter blog post (last week), in which the reasons why other hypotheses were ruled out? We physicists did consider things like the theory of gravity being wrong, the laws of inertia being wrong and there being other sorts of invisible matter (black holes, etc.) We didn’t invent dark matter for fun. We were stuck with the hypothesis when all the other ideas were shown to be wrong.

        When you have ruled out the impossible, whatever is left, however improbable, is the truth….

    • “Some of their observations are pretty ordinary”.. Please take this to heart everybody. On the makeup of dark matter… Why is it anything different than ‘light’ matter that has lost enough energy to cease emitting? Why must it be any different than a match when it burns down and goes out?? Earth is dark matter but for a few remaining flickers… Isn’t it?

      As for black holes I’m not yet convinced light is a slave to gravity? Yes, some element of the space light’s emission ripples across warps as the light progresses its waveform across it. But, the fact that the wave can travel across space still only guarantees there is ‘something else’ yet to be understood that also fills that empty space and may also be distorted by nearby gravity.

      I say ‘ether’, an all encompassing ‘something’, is alive and well and yet to be viably dismissed because light emissions can rustle and ripple across its content in passing as it ‘moves across it’. If light is a waveform progressed like sound or sea waves, nothing goes anywhere more than a wavelength or so… Does it? The ‘nothing’ simply shakes to progress it… Yes?

      It is VERY easy to prove galaxies are ‘almost all’ created by stellar impacts. ‘Couldn’t possibly so, could it?’ You don’t need more astronomers or physicists with their ever more complex intellectualizations to impress each other to explain them. Just go to the Hubble Heritage site and download the best image of the Whirlpool galaxy and I will tell you how to progress. You will need a program like Adobe Photoshop and very elementary knowledge of its use.

      The Whirlpool galaxy is an offset impact between 2 stars. The great ‘spinning’ ‘spiraling’ arms are caused by no more than the changing angles of progressive impacting faces of 2 stars spewing debris sideways as they enter each other.

      If you take a look at them as a geometric problem caused by an offset impact progression into each other, you can design a simple proof by just working out the trajectories.

      They will have an opposing ‘U’ shaped debris pattern on each side of the thermonuclear supernova blast where matter directly opposing is transformed to light because it can’t move out of the way of the opposing masses fast enough.

      You can guarantee this by placing 2 laterally opposing layers of your Whirlpool galaxy image over the top of each other. Make your top layer 50% transparent. If you now have 2 opposing spirals, your galaxy was caused by an internal emission spinning outwards, as science assumes currently.

      What you will really get is an ‘impact generated hologram’ showing the progression of impacting objects across your image. You can do this with any space matter accumulation with the same result. The implication being: ALL of it was impact generated and the only black holes or other grand themes involved are still between academic ears on the topic.

      Of course, you must be an astronomer or physicist before you can discover this truth. It’s not a ‘true’ fact until one adopts it as their own discovery. And, none can discover it until it is found or stated by or otherwise tested by their peers anyway.

      Also from your Whirlpool galaxy image… If you carefully find the correct centerline, you can slide 2 halves of the image together along that plane and get a full clear expanding circle from your 2 opposing debris arms – just as you would if the 2 stars actually were the same mass colliding centrally into each other, instead of offset as most random stellar impacts must be.

      • Dark matter is dark not because it doesn’t emit light, but because it >>CAN’T<>NO<< electromagnetic radiation, nor does it interact with electromagnetic radiation that hits it.

        And there is zero chance that spiral galaxies are caused by two stars undergoing a glancing collision. The distances are too far and masses too large.

    • Hi Don, 2 unrelated image manipulation processes imply galaxies are impact generated.

      Both of the supplied pics use the same Hubble image of the Whirlpool galaxy and both imply this galaxy is impact generated.

      The first pic already offered simply slides half of the original image sideways to make a full debris circle of 2 opposing splayed ‘arms’. This simply can’t happen if there is a true spiral evident in the original picture. This galaxy is NOT possibly a spiraling ejection of matter. It is 2 opposing semicircular impact ejections of matter.

      The second pic makes what is a true hologram and again, instead of opposing spiral layers it shows a star transiting an exploding mass directly related to it. ‘Zero chance it implies anything else’.

      This 2nd image version is created by overlaying a second duplicated layer over itself as a polarizing filter and rotating it about the centre of the galaxy. ANY aligned rotation of it will show variations of this same event. The dominant top layer is 50% opaque. The lower layer is 75% opaque.

      This simple process will do this for ‘all’ other galaxies you try it with. Because it is truly holographic it will do it for parts of galaxies and other space debris. If the matter in the original image is a ‘shockwave impact polarized’ ejection from somewhere, laterally reversing the image over itself will ‘turn on’ that potentially pristine polarized ‘virtual impact image’ latent within the original layer. It will do so regardless of prevailing guesses about why it isn’t so.

      It will do it for most earth and moon imagery too, and will eventually guarantee the full clear process of moonbirth and continent birth were one event, when a few sleepy scientists finally manage to open an eye or two and bother to consider it.

      Again, it will do so for ‘all’ earth and moon imagery – regardless of prevailing guesses about why it isn’t so.

    • Just curious, but why does dark matter need to have “has a mass tens or thousands of times that of the familiar proton”. If we haven’t found it, then how do we have measurements of it..?

      I have this silly little theory concerning it. See, take normal matter. Now, over the course of billions and billions of years, apply ENTROPY. Now, as the energy to interact decreases, it becomes harder and harder to detect… but if it retains its mass and no other quality… suddenly you have remains of the universal energy that has “burnt out/condensed/cooled off”…

      • That’s a reasonable question. To really see the answer requires some significant math, but if you truest me to explain it in words, it’s easy to understand.

        Once you come to accepting that the laws of physics continue to work (ruling that out as an explanation), and accept that the dark matter isn’t black holes (because we’ve done that experiment and ruled it out), you’re left with the “gas cloud of invisible particles” thing.

        Once that happens, you can calculate what the universe would look like if these dark matter particles were very low mass and can calculate what the universe would look like if the particles had high mass. The low mass particles would move fast (because they have low intertia). The high mass particles move slowly. In fact, the jargon is “Hot Dark Matter (HDM)” for low mass and “Cold Dark Matter (CDM)” for that reason.

        So you can calculate a HDM universe and compare it to observations. The universe doesn’t look like that. Then you calculate a CDM universe and to the same comparison. Bingo! The universe looks like that.

        By diddly futzing around with your calculation (and incorporating information from measurements), you can come up with an allowed range of the mass of the dark matter particles that can make the observed universe.

        This is why we can make some of the statements that we do. We’ve never seen dark matter, but we’ve ruled out other options. So…now assuming DM exists…we can further restrict its allowed properties.


        Now, regarding your idea, matter doesn’t know that it gets old. A hydrogen atom now is just like a hydrogen atom 10 billion years ago. And “dark” just means its properties with respect to light. Dark means that if you shine a laser on it, you won’t be able to see it.

        Essentially, your idea is not consistent with data, and we can thus rule it out. The properties of atomic matter don’t change over time.

    • Jonbonz

      Daniel I like your theory. E=MC2 tells us that mater and energy is neither created or destroyed but transformed form one to the other. you may have a solution to the energy crises ! if this dark mater and energy all a round us some one needs to get on this!

      • John F. Hendry

        Relative to the strong force E=m+{a}c2. E=mc2 shows the value of energy contained in the weak force and in the value of E in an initial wait state. Let’s keep it simple….. it takes space to move time…. and put the cosmological constant where it belongs. It takes two Mass oscillation cycles to create one instance location of Mass/Observer C/G in the DNA’s Gene Ensemble.

    • I feel Dark matter is what god put,

    • Rebbman

      Is it possible to divide up the universe into two categories, the Now and the not now? dark matter being the now, as it has no way to measure it(absolute dark and no temperature) it must be the alpha and the omega, and always now as there is no way to measure movement , mass, or anything else. the not now , our visible universe, is expanding ever faster because the now cannot interact with it, but to act as antigravity ??

    • mark fennell

      If science discovered incontrovertible evidence of the existence of a creator, intelligent design and a will behind the machinations of the universe, would it be obliged to lie about it, in order to maintain the incentivisation toward materialism? When I think about the lies that have been passed off as history since recorded time, and the frightening capacity they now possess for mediating our sense of reality and therefore our modes of behaviour and life choices, I seriously doubt that they would risk an outbreak of mental health and sanity which would affect revenue streams and such, and the scientific discovery of the truth about our existence and our relationship with God could easily create a new religious surge and forging of identity around a common belief, which would be disastrous for the monied elites of the Western world. Are you lying to us, brother?

      • What binds together scientists is the quest for truth. If that leads us in the direction of burning bushes and arks, so be it. However the data hasn’t lead us that way. The simple fact is that the data is quite inconsistent with many religious worldviews. Sadly for some, many religious claims have been utterly debunked. This doesn’t mean that God is Dead as Nietzche claimed. But religion as an accurate description of the universe is very clearly on life support. As a way for people to psychologically cope with the uncertainties of life, it still thrives.

        People somehow project their own way of thinking onto scientists, thinking that the scientific worldview is some kind of global conspiracy. This is utterly silly. The scientific world is a hyper-competitive search for truth, no matter what it is.
        Truth is all that matters.

        • John F. Hendry

          “What binds together scientists is the quest for truth.”
          That is absolutely correct….but:
          What holds scientists together in one piece is War.
          It’s the thugs and greed driving, not the scientists and their logic. There are no dice. e- {a}/t=hv

        • mark fennell

          Is it truth, though. I feel that the quest for knowlege and the quest for truth are not quite the same thing. I think that truth lies in our relationship with what knowlege reveals. Same as the accuracy of the description that science reveals and the way we relate as individuals and as a collective to what is described. Can we base a national identity on scientific formulae? As I often wonder about Dawkins pontifications, what are the chances that every person will be in a position to know for themselves what he knows? Will they have the time, access to technology or even the intelligence to understand it if they did? In effect, you can only say “Believe us.” Which makes you pretty much the same as priests and vicars. That brings us to the question of “Can we trust scientists?” Are scientists in a position to disclose the fruits of their labradors in accord with their own consciences? Or is it the case, as I believe it is, that what the ordinary man in the street calls science is in fact just another branch of the media, regulating the flow of information to support the great, glistening soap bubble of public opinion, a flabby, ineffable shiny surface of infinite fragility and vacuousness but of such careful devising and of such decisive import to the contiuation of the delusional democracy of the West? Is it likely that they would give airtime and media legitimacy to a scientist who was not entirely co-opted? Don’t rogue scientists often end up dead or worse?

          • The media loves controversy. They frequently give airtime to people who don’t have a clue. Look at the cigarette or global warming “debate.” The scientific community was essentially unanimous on these subjects, yet contrary voices often appeared.

            Thus I reject your premise.

            And rogue scientists don’t end up dead or worse. They end up on Fox News. Wait…that does constitute “or worse…”

        • mark fennell

          I have another question for you. If Einstein professed to believe in God, then why? Do you suspect that he made a choice for the greater good? That his name carried such weight and credibility that he figured that the world would be better off for believing that he believed in God? And might that not in fact be the more noble motive than the sense of power in discovery? If we cannot disprove God, and the existence of God expedites good, mostly, as a social contract if not a foreign policy, then wouldn’t it be better to err on the side of God?

          • You might wish to read a little more deeply into Einstein’s use of the term “god.” He didn’t believe in a god in the traditional sense. He used the term more as a metaphor for the ultimate rules that govern the universe. His oft-quoted phrase invoking “God’s thoughts” is a lovely metaphor that I have used myself. But it is (and always was intended to be) just a metaphor.


        • ron

          Hi Don, a long time ago i had a profound belief in the principles science and its exponents espouse. A long time ago I also was brought into decades of confrontation with a very real truth truth that science and its exponents are utterly lost amid a tangle of ever more eloquent beliefs and theories they mostly seem to need to extrapolate into the more spectacular and more eloquent.

          A long time ago I stood up and challenged that if there really is a god it should be prepared to stand and deliver full clear truth of its presence and value for us all.

          A long time ago, about 10 minutes after I made that rather angry challenge, I was forced into a journey that:
          guaranteed there really is a god behind this world,
          was given/forced to discover and record 6 full years of personal research of a project only an intelligent external presence that knows could deliver to me,
          was clearly shown through a conscious death experience/confrontation that literally was a predicted then forced interview with ‘god’ that this reality is but a shadow of our real consciousness source,
          was forced to accept that academia is still in the very darkest ages of science as a useful tool toward real understanding of truth.
          I also had numerous conscious separations of consciousness from body, so we don’t need these heavy fleshy things wrapped around each of us to exist, and, that other state is more our true home or source than any game we choose to give focus to in passing here.

          These points are self evident to me now and unfortunately science to me now is a hollow progression of errors exploring dreams with no useful endings that are solid, ‘string theories’ that will all ultimately prove out as hollow as each piece followed comes to its empty end in its turn.

          Science without its burning bush source in a reality that is larger than life as we allow ourselves to explore it here is still empty life and resource waste for pontificating professing fools endlessly blowing bubbles around their own magnificence as only they each perceive it.

          And, well, as I said, I used to be in so much reverence of all we have discovered here… As with any comedy of errors and mistakes progressed, we are still at the start Don!

          I don’t really like posting among you. It just injects me into the waffle that rattles from it all from there. But, I truly do with just one of you would finally manage to stand tall above all
          the others without being pulled down by all the confetti thrown and burying them from there.

      • John F. Hendry

        LOL…. CERN’s neutrino speed: v-c/c=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 mi
        Stanford’s SLAC E158 data matches it @ 2.48e-5 creating a .20e-5 harmonic comma by comparing the two sets of data creating the space needed for the force of gravity…. as predicted.

        • mark fennell

          You know what is interesting about that statement? It is that I have no idea what it means, and I imagine very few people would. Can you dumb it down so that we who are not sufficiently educated or intelligent can understand it?

        • I trust that you are aware that the origins of the bad measurement at CERN has been identified as a loose cable. The measurement was retracted and a new measurement was made with the cable tightened. The new measurement is in accordance to the idea that neutrinos move slower than the speed of light.

          • John F. Hendry

            With great respect… Yes, I am well aware of that. I think the reason is obvious but I’ll come back later and explain it after finishing up a paper that needs to get sent off. So let me say for now I am also aware a Google search on “SLAC E158” went from just a few results to 10 full pages, 20, 40, 80, 100 full pages in less than 30 days after I posted SLAC’s E158 data matching CERN’s data on Nature’s forum and elsewhere and all my posts going over the calculations with everyone else’s were later removed on Nature’s forum but Google saved it 😉 as did many of us for safe keeping.

            I am also aware that SLAC went back through almost 10 years of data and reached a 14-sigma level of certainty showing a violation of time reversal symmetry confirming the asymmetry in time AND THEREFORE SPACE due to the two harmonic commas I pointed out exposing a second reverse arrow connected to time needed to support E=T and was announced November 19, 2012. Please note I pointed it out years before CERN’s Sept 2011 worldwide announcement that let me prove it. Space forms in a harmonic octave structure and gravity in 2D is the result of two harmonic commas, the 2nd bigger than the first. Gravity bends space and gravity is a product of time, and time is relative to the observer: LIGO is pointing in the wrong direction. The mirrors needs to point in the direction they will fall in real spacetime.

            The observed coupling constant is the result of the asymmetry of the weak force and time dilation caused by looking at light created by a speed of light clock. e {a}/t=hv
            It’s a ratio relative to real inertial frame based time. There are no dice, God plays cards.

            • Also, with due respect, any physics prediction that agrees with the faster than light neutrino measurement of 2012 is simply wrong. That’s because the OPERA collaboration made a mistake. Their equipment wasn’t working properly. They have remeasured the important quantities and now there is no problem with FTL neutrinos.

              Also, with additional due respect, the hit count on Google has no bearing on the value of a particular physics theory.

              I do agree that E158 is a pretty cool experiment. While they do see a discrepancy between their measurement and predictions, the uncertainty is sufficiently large that they claim that their measurement is consistent with the Standard Model.

              Personally, I believe you are chasing a phantom. On the other hand, if you prove to be correct, the scientific community will be very happy to learn that. As much as non-professional scientists like to think the science community is reactionary and holds to existing theory, the reason the LHC was built was to explode existing theories. Nothing yet, but we’re looking.

              Good luck on your theory.

            • John F. Hendry

              It’s 3 AM and need to let time have a cycle…but let me say this that’s throwing you off to what I’m saying I think. I’m not saying the neutrinos exceeded the speed of light and Einstein was wrong. No way. I am showing why the measurement is correct relative to Theta 23 and why they did not exceed the speed of light showing he was absolutely right on a second count as well and the gain measured represents the cosmological constant eliminating the dice by adding the asymmetry of the weak force.

              The neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light because they are added/created at the speed of light acting as if the photon has a true anti-particle, or rather the force carrier space needed for the photons energy to move from the weak force into the strong force. E=mc2 is box of space. It takes time/space to move E and that needed space is what was detected showing E=m+{a}c2 relative to the strong force.

              Summerfeld showed in 1948 and many others since then making the same claim the SOL is being broken because the photon is also showing this same gain in space/time. We see it when light reflects off a mirror and reflects back from a different point as if to have penetrated the mirror. Maxwell’s equations are being used to “correct” a speed of light clock observed to be running fast. And the speed of light clock is Mass oscillation within the weak force.

              Be logical: how can we look at light and not be looking at a speed of light clock creating the light? And if we are looking at a speed of light clock how can our clocks move? That question is how I came to the conclusion the weak force must have an asymmetry. And it answered another question, where is the harmonic comma. For me it was a 2 in 1 answer. And that is how I learned of the E158 data when I Googled “weak force asymmetry”. And getting the value… that was too good to be true.

              Relative to the strong force (our body/eyes/T) we see the asymmetry of the weak force value {a} add the distance light travels in one hour in a vacuum to the distance light travels in one thousand years. Those are two huge and very distant distances compared to only 453.6 miles, the distance CERN’s neutrino traveled @ v-c/c=2.48e-5. There is no way that huge distinct ratio of WF Asy gain when broken down and applied to 453.6 miles can match CERN’s data @ 2.48e-5 AND create the needed .20e-5 harmonic comma space for the second reverse arrow of Mass oscillation in space that is relative to time to show the asymmetry added to space like that and be a coincidence.

              And regarding SLAC’s findings after going back and looking at their data supporting the asymmetry in space/time according to the journal Physical Review Letters, the results are “impressively robust”, with a 1 in 10 tredecillion (1043) or 14-sigma level of certainty – “far more than needed to declare a discovery.” Their words not mine. So add that I predicted all aspects of the two sets of data matching and it adds even more to show it cannot be a coincidence.

              Einstein reversed the symmetry of time: Time is not relative to multiple observers at the same time, time is relative to a single observer O=E in multiple places in time. “Relative to the Observer all others are behind it in time.”

              There is no ether needed because space is the force carrier of gravity (why the graviton looks like a hole in the reverse arrow) and we have the first location of Mass moved by quantum gravity to create a true or “initial” inertial frame of reference. But…we also need a second “apparent” true inertial frame of reference for the fist proton created that appears to come from nothing affected by Universal gravity. Quantum gravity (Mass) in the weak force and Universal gravity (space) in the strong force don’t mix and their phase timing of force is opposite in their phase timing.

              And this brings up a most important issue of which frame of reference we use to discuss the stiches in the straight jacket of symmetry with the neutrino (and gratrino) being the most difficult to get in phase to build information frames that fit. The weak force and the strong force are doing the “Moon Dance” with E & T to keep them both a constant.

              It’s late but know I have the deepest respect for the work you are able to do and the accomplishments you have all made. I just wish I had your language of mathematics and geometry to take advantage of it better and hold a conversation. But I know the atom is the smallest whole unit measurement of forward time and that needs to be the basis of a system of measurement to deal with constant time dilation in effect.

              As for “uncertainty” I am certain Einstein was right but its late.

          • Itrustinnumbersmore

            And Hitler owned a lot of bridges too. Lot’s of people have followed the calculations and SLAC E158 data matched. Why should we believe CERN over the data matching? It’s true you don’t need to understand it to see it match. The ratio is too big to be a coincidence.

            • We should believe the CERN results because their original data was simply wrong. A cable was loose. Very embarassing to be sure, but there is no ambiguity.

    • John F. Hendry

      Don, the equation below speaks for itself. You will see it take’s the 4 forces and creates a simple clock that creates the first proton. However after a great deal of consideration I believe because it establishes a true inertial frame of reference connecting the Observer’s Mass to time it shows a 5th force of Nature in the form of Free Will through the ability to change the direction of an object in motion as well as the outcome of Life on a planet with the potential to effect it and other planets in many ways and therefore constitutes a force of Nature as real as the other 4 following in phase with causality leading to synchronicity.

      The simple expression of the Unified Field Theory equation below shows using the {a} asymmetry of the weak force value in the observed coupling constant (in place of the neutrino/gratrino) to separate Quantum gravity in the weak force (W) from Universal gravity in the strong force (T). Notice Universal gravity in T is getting weaker in relative inertial frames of reference as time increases the size of the Universe. This is why cosmologists think five-sixths of the matter in the Universe is missing as it is caused by an observation looking through the harmonic octave formation of space connected to a true inertial frame of reference holding it in place. The asymmetry of the weak force only affects measurements in T and because I expressed the equation using gravity, it’s simplest expression, the 2 harmonic commas responsible for the asymmetry of the weak force creating the force of gravity are in balance. The further back in time you look the stronger gravity is relative to its octave level in space/time.

      O (ifr/qg) = E (qg=mc2) = W (qg=st) = (e{a}/t=hv) = T (g=s/t)

      O=Observer, ifr=Inertial Frame of Reference, qg=Quantum gravity, g=Universal gravity, W=Weak Force and middle equation between W&T is the fine structure constant equation sought after ever since Sommerfeld measured it and I resolved simply by adding {a} the asymmetry of the weak force to show it’s a ratio of time dilation. T=Strong Force s=Space t=Time T is facing W a speed of light clock observed to be running fast as SLAC’s E158 WF asymmetry data indicates from our normal state of perception. However obviously on closer examination time cannot move ahead of the pendulum creating it.

      • On this we concur…the equation speaks for itself.

        • John F. Hendry

          The hard cold reality is if there is Mass… it takes time to move it creating it’s own reference frame and before it does move we have an inertial frame of reference to measure time and motion in space from. We can only start building the Universe with what we have to build it with and know is real: one E equal to one antiproton at a time at the most or the least to end up in the strong force phase (time in T) showing qg=s/t equal to a proton. We do not gain, nor do we lose energy and E’s constant value creating time through Mass oscillation is shown being moved through 13.7 > billion years of space and coming out at the end of time exactly as it must: E.

          But even though it is blinding I use g=s/t (1=1/1 through 1= */*) because the ratio remains the same even though the value of g is a tiny tiny fraction of E’s electric force phase. This exposes the difference in the size of two harmonic commas creating the force of gravity in two dimensions and this timing is critical in the DNA gene ensemble as it takes two Mass oscillations to create one instance of a center of gravity for the observer as the logic of the tonal space information frames move forward with it. This equation showed me and others the weak force had an asymmetry as looking at the speed of light clock in W from T makes it quite obvious.

    • John F. Hendry

      Don as you read this ask yourself how can neutrinos that have mass and oscillate travel from tens of thousands of light years away reach Earth at the speed of light? And what does 1+1= equal if you say 1=E? There is always a logical answer using symmetry to obtain a logical answer from the information frame provided the question is correct and capable of providing an answer. 1+1 cannot equal 2 E’s, you can only 1×1=1E and move it ahead and you will have to wait to do it again. And while you wait you will see E sneaking back in through a reverse arrow connected to time to allow it to happen again showing E=T. Hereis the evidence needed.

      CERN’s Muon phase neutrinos @ v-c/c=2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles match SLAC’s
      E158 asymmetry of the weak force data @ 2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles creating the
      .20e-5 sec harmonic comma space SLAC later confirmed with a sigma 14 level of certainty.

      Weak Force Asymmetry {a} adds 1hour/3600 seconds every 1000 years/3.6 seconds a year: Re: SLAC E158 “using clocks”. Neutrino’s do not exceed speed of light as CERN thought “if the data is correct”. The data is obvious.

      3600sec / 1000 years

      3.6 sec x 186282 speed of light = {a} time added to the speed of light in one year

      670615.2 / 365.2425 year = {a} time added to speed of light in one day

      1836.082055072999 / 24 hours = {a} time added to speed of light in one hour

      76.50341896137498 / 60 minutes = {a} time added to speed of light in one minute

      1.275056982689583 / 60 seconds = {a} time added to speed of light in one second

      0.021250949711493 / 410.6746031746032 = 186282/453.6 miles {a} percentage of
      one second gain.

      5.174644243208279e-5/2 {a} forward/back total neutrino oscillation time gained in 453.6 miles

      Now that last calculation is a game changer because the answer shows time has a reverse Mass oscillation arrow. And note the specific and exceptionally long SOL distances that create the asymmetry of the weak force ratio SLAC’s E158 team measured. Add to that I had been quoting the E158 data for years after finding it and expected it to match like this to add the asymmetry to space calling it a lesser diesis and a coincidence of this magnitude is not possible and thinking that is illogical.

      2.58732212160414e-5{a} distance (Subtract 0.10e-5) oscillation time in forward
      arrow of time in 453.6 miles 2.48e-5

      2.58732212160414e-5 {a} distance (Add 0.10e-5) oscillation time in second arrow
      of space in 453.6 miles 2.68e-5

      CERN Neutrinos @ v-c/c = 2.48e-5 create a lesser diesis (Einstein’s Comma) = 0.20e-5 (0.10e-5 + 0.10e-5) by matching SLAC’s E158 asymmetry of the weak force data in the forward arrow of time @ 2.48e-5 sec in 453.6 miles….;-)

      See Richard Feynman trip over this 45:45 sec @

      About the typo: notice that relative to T if you ignore phase timing you can use qg=E which is a whole unit of measurement of quantum gravity RELATIVE TO THE WEAK FORCE that equals E as: qg=s/t that looks like this to start with 1=1/1 and goes on to 1= any other whole number divided by itself representing space divided by time. But that mixes up the separate inertial frame of reference Mass anti-particle phase timing in W relative to T and contradicts my reasoning of using the second harmonic comma value of “g” to expose the reverse phase timing and full E value of Quantum Gravity in relationship to Universal gravity’s G which as a force expressed in “size” compared to the electric force is equal in size to a proton compared to the size of the entire Universe which is not a coincidence as Feynman says in the video above. The fine structure constant is held at a constant by the asymmetry of the weak force and shows the same time dilation and octave level expansion of space responsible for causing the mistaken appearance of most of the matter and energy in the Universe to be missing so when you apply that to the growing size of the Universe missing more and more matter with the passage of time you see the size relationship of the two forces remains constant as well.

      • John,
        You keep quoting a CERN (v-c)/c number that is positive. It’s true that this number was reported in the press. It’s also true that it was retracted as being caused by a loose cable. The number is simply wrong and the OPERA collaboration has since disavowed it. Any time you incorporate a measurement that is simply wrong, your conclusion is invalid or at least on very shaky grounds.

        You can, of course, do what you want. But that particular measurement is no more valid than the “Dewey Wins” headline held by Truman some 60+ years ago.

    • John F. Hendry

      Don I’ve been too busy to reply to your last statement on the level required but I appreciate your time observing and wanted to state regarding the fine structure constant equation @ e{a}/t=hv and other simple expressions I don’t follow the normal routine as 2 apples cannot exist in the same space at the same time.

      I realize its (e{a})/t=hv for those that express simple equations such as CERN’s v-c/c=2.48e-5 equation as (v-c)/c=2.48e-5. Technically the order of operations requires you to do the inside brackets first but in simple equations following the arrow of time left to right I leave them out because to get to the other side the expression is obvious and they get in the way of “exampling” a part of an equation which is how I use them as in ” W (wp=st) or W (Qg=st) ” showing what W is.
      Although {a} uses the right brackets I classify {a} as it’s own symbol separating the weak force phase timing from he strong force’s phase timing dealing with keeping E an isolated constant where the two arrows of Mass oscillation in time are shown in it’s WF Asy value. IE: the order of operations in my equations follow the arrow of time not the conventions that allow 1(E) + 1(E) = 2(E). I would state that in a question with a possible answer on the atomic scale as 1(E) x 1(E) = 1(E) and use {a} to add the wait state needed to have E in two or more locations relative to time as 1(E) x 1(E) = E x {a} taking time dilation into account. To do math on the atomic scale it requires an new system of mathematics doing far more than just keeping E separated in it’s quantum state otherwise you will end up with all the matter and energy in the Universe missing due to the harmonic octave structure of space created by time that resulted in the two harmonic commas responsible for the force of gravity in 2D leading to it’s observation in 3D.