Active Users:250 Time:30/04/2024 04:16:53 AM
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel Send a noteboard - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
Call me old fashioned, but I remain dubious when science contrives unverifiable aberrations to explain why some data doesn't fit the curve.

What does that sentence even mean?

It means that reading about dark matter (and energy) always reminds of reading Perfect Symmetry in HS twenty years ago and thinking, Do these guys just posit a new particle for every otherwise inexplicable observational anomaly? Just because it worked the first couple times doesn't mean it should be the automatic response, and certainly not the only one. The same book naturally discussed searching for proton decay with neutrino detectors, which increasingly looks like a fools errand; even if the lowest half lifes still technically possible are valid it's unlikely we'll ever observe proton decay, let alone reproduce that observation under identical conditions. Looking at the history of what's been invalidated is why, although we should certainly test every theory when we can, I'm a lot more interested in the LHCs unexpected revelations.

Most of the Holy Grails in particle physics do at least allow proof of their existence, however; most definitions I've seen for dark matter and dark energy (which mainly seems an explanation for dark matter not covering all the bases either) seem to make them unverifiable by definition (if not as badly as my favorite such example: Branes).
For all the talk of radical new models, most of this strikes me as a bandaid obviating the need for new theories when something unaccounted for by the old one surfaces.


And what is dark matter, if it isn't a new theory?

A modification of an existing theory. Maybe I'm being a little semantic here, but it doesn't seem like a revision on the order of what Relativity did to Classical Mechanics. Most of my objection really boils down to giving it that kind of gravitas; there's no reason all or even most normal matter must reflect or emit energy visible from Earth, and good reason to think most of it doesn't. If by dark matter and dark energy we simply mean normal matter and energy we can't observe or haven't, sure, I'm on board with that, but if we're talking about some exotic and unprecedented form of matter or energy I'm not convinced of the need or evidence.
There are simpler bandaids to be had but, regardless, the same rule applies to cosmology that applies to particle physics: Anything you can't test isn't physics, it's metaphysics. It may be valid metaphysics, but the one thing it's not is science.

When observational data doesn't match the theory, there must be something wrong with the theory, the observations or both. In this case, an example would be that measurements indicate that same galaxies rotate too fast to be held together by gravity if there is only the mass we can see. This has been seen in numerous galaxies, so it is unlikely to be a problem with the observations. The two most obvious explanations are that either there is something wrong with the theory of gravity on a large length scales, or there is mass present which we can't see.

For various reasons dark matters seems to be the preferred theory, but if we assume a modified gravitational law was the leading theory, how would that be any more or less testable than dark matter?

It probably wouldn't be, and given a choice I'd prefer dark matter, but positing it as matter we can't see because it's too far away from us and/or any energy source makes a lot more sense to me than positing it as matter that literally cannot be seen, by us or anyone.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
Exciting video about the universe - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1042 Views
Cool, and true *NM* - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 311 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect. - 28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM 777 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter. - 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM 707 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 641 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM 746 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 707 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM 579 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 616 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. - 04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM 714 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM 789 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM 627 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM 572 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM 665 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM 587 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am. - 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM 662 Views
The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 606 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 812 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 624 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 692 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 633 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 723 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 731 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 729 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99) - 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM 945 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 651 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 618 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 745 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 577 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1089 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. - 04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM 619 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. - 07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM 810 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. - 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM 732 Views

Reply to Message