Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
OK, read it again; he doesn't seem to address MACHOs directly, if at all. The closest he comes seems to be referencing the "the large majority (about 90%) of ordinary matter in a cluster... not in the galaxies themselves, but in hot X-ray emitting intergalactic gas". It's an interesting statement, because he's basically saying that 90% of the matter in the galaxies isn't really "in" them at all, but around them, which, whether we can (normally) see it or not, is exactly what MACHO theories claim; however unlikely the large masses of low density hydrogen I referenced above are, they appear to be real. That doesn't account for the greater gravitational lensing observed beyond the gases in the pictures, but an intervening highly MACHO(s) might.
Lensing happens when there's a concentrated source of matter between the observer and the object; for dark matter that's distributed fairly homogeneously within the galaxy, that's very unlikely to happen. When we look at lensing from entire clusters of far-away galaxies, we get results that match exotic matter expectations, but not ordinary matter expectations.
In other words,
Lensing happens when there's a concentrated source of matter between the observer and the object; for dark matter that's distributed fairly homogeneously within the galaxy, that's very unlikely to happen. When we look at lensing from entire clusters of far-away galaxies, we get results that match exotic matter expectations, but not ordinary matter expectations.
In other words,
there's enough dark matter to significantly affect galactic rotation but not enough to create nearby gravitational lensing,
and those propositions aren't contradictory because there's a BIG difference between the amount of dark matter necessary for the former and the latter.
Again, if that's what the evidence and you are saying, fine, but the blog post about the Bullet Cluster does not, in itself, rule out MACHOs; the cluster only rules out MACHOs on the basis that theories about them say they should be homogeneous. Heterogeneous MACHOs could explain the Bullet Cluster, too, but if that's inherently contradictory I don't object to ruling out MACHOs.Read the last three paragraphs again, but especially in the second-to-last paragraph:
The dark matter isn’t just ordinary matter that’s not shining; limits from primordial nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background imply a strict upper bound on the amount of ordinary matter, and it’s not nearly enough to account for all the matter we need. This new result doesn’t tell us which particle the new dark matter is, but it confirms that there is such a particle.
What really gives me pause though is statements like the articles first paragraph
Above emphases mine. Does that last sentence sound at all familiar? Maybe like the notion a century ago that all of physics had been mapped out and nothing remained except to fill in the details, the idea so often ridiculed and that "simply doesn't occur as often" now? Is Dr. Carroll one of those oversensationalizing undereducated media hacks you mentioned? If so, should I recognize the sweeping statements with which he leads off his article as authoritative? Or do statements like those and his later one that "We would all love to out-Einstein Einstein" underscore my valid concerns?
Dark Matter Exists
by Sean
The great accomplishment of late-twentieth-century cosmology was putting together a complete inventory of the universe. We can tell a story that fits all the known data, in which ordinary matter (every particle ever detected in any experiment) constitutes only about 5% of the energy of the universe, with 25% being dark matter and 70% being dark energy. The challenge for early-twenty-first-century cosmology will actually be to understand the nature of these mysterious dark components....
by Sean
The great accomplishment of late-twentieth-century cosmology was putting together a complete inventory of the universe. We can tell a story that fits all the known data, in which ordinary matter (every particle ever detected in any experiment) constitutes only about 5% of the energy of the universe, with 25% being dark matter and 70% being dark energy. The challenge for early-twenty-first-century cosmology will actually be to understand the nature of these mysterious dark components....
Above emphases mine. Does that last sentence sound at all familiar? Maybe like the notion a century ago that all of physics had been mapped out and nothing remained except to fill in the details, the idea so often ridiculed and that "simply doesn't occur as often" now? Is Dr. Carroll one of those oversensationalizing undereducated media hacks you mentioned? If so, should I recognize the sweeping statements with which he leads off his article as authoritative? Or do statements like those and his later one that "We would all love to out-Einstein Einstein" underscore my valid concerns?
Sean says "we can tell a story that fits all the known data." He does not say that there are no new phenomena out there, merely that we have a basic understanding of the phenomena we have seen so far.
This is a qualitative question, or should be; we're debating whether something exists, not the frequency of its occurrence. If you want to put that in quantitative terms that exotic dark matter is 99% likely, OK, but a lot of your statements (and almost all of Dr. Carrolls) aren't just quantitative, there without qualifiers. If you don't want me objecting that you're being too definitive where too much remains undefined, be less definitive.
At some point, probability becomes sufficiently high enough to use definitive language. From an empirical standpoint, "X is true" always means "we should act as though X were true, because given the evidence, X has a probability nearing 100%."
Exciting video about the universe
28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
- 1264 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
- 966 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
- 911 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 850 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
- 950 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
- 885 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
- 791 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
- 812 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
- 912 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
- 987 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
- 827 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
- 785 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
- 865 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
- 786 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
- 860 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
- 814 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 1022 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 833 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
- 902 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
- 1151 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
- 1146 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 853 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
- 970 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
- 941 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
- 928 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
- 893 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
- 1063 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
- 833 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
- 1124 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 734 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 1083 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 860 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 1158 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
- 967 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
- 1201 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 974 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
- 1278 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
- 837 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 828 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 965 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 775 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1302 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
- 815 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
- 1029 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
- 938 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
- 1124 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
- 852 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
- 1105 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
- 852 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
- 806 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 766 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
- 868 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
- 818 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
- 984 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
- 952 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
- 790 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
- 874 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
- 777 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
- 948 Views