/sci/ - Science & Math

That's an area of active research. Come back later.

>>14760756
My poop and my fart

>>14760756
she has an expression like the zucc

Dark energy is the cosmological constant. It is not "mysterious", it is not something we know nothing about, or any of the other common claims from people who don't know anything.

The fact that the vacuum of space has non-zero energy is predicted by quantum field theory. The predicted value is infinite, because getting any finite value requires arbitrarily picking a "cutoff". It's similar to a singularity in that it probably arises from naively applying an incomplete theory to a domain where it no longer applies. People don't actually think the vacuum energy is infinite, and this is part of why the idea of a cosmological constant was ignored for so long, until we discovered the accelerating expansion of the universe.

The actual problem is explaining why the cosmological constant is so close to zero, but still positive.

Dark matter unfortunately does not have as good of a theoretical answer. Particles that don't interact with the strong force or electromagnetism is the best theory we have, but that's not a prediction of the standard model without supersymmetry, and supersymmetry is extremely questionable.

I am not as familiar with the dark energy side so will skip that, but for dark matter the issue is that the current theory of gravity, which works so well within our solar system (see all the complicated gravity assist maneuvers space probes have had plotted) fails hard at predicting how stars rotate around the center of galaxies, or how galaxies interact with each other on galactic clusters. Stars in the outer part of galaxies move much faster than expected based on the visible mass, likewise say (most) dwarf galaxies move too fast around bigger galaxies.

This has lead to two competing explanations - modified gravity theories, which suggest that gravity acts differently at large scales, and dark matter, which suggests there is a very large amount of non-visible matter holding things together. Modified gravity theories have fallen out of favor as no one has been able to come up with one that fits all the available data; for example dwarf galaxies with similar amounts of visible matter can have very different motions. The dark matter theory can explain those dwarf galaxies as having more or less dark matter, due to odd events separating the two. Likewise, there are regions like the bullet cluster where the gravitational lensing does not match the visible matter, which indicates well some sort of invisible matter.

As for dark matter, if it exists, it is still unknown exactly what it is. What it isn't has been well tested - various astronomical surveys have ruled ordinary matter, like planets, brown dwarfs, large black holes, and so on. Particle detector tests have ruled a host of hypothetical particles. So that leaves some sort of exotic particle that makes neutrinos seem trivial to detect (axions being a leading one) or primordial black holes in a specific size range. Or possibly something else no one has thought of, or maybe even the Modified gravity guys will have the last laugh. It just isn't known yet.

>>14760756

>>14760805
She got pregnant just to avoid trial. Imagine how fucked that child is with a mother like that.

>>14760756

Memes and fudge.

I propose that the current black hole theory is wrong.

Basically scientists use different math for the exterior and the interior.

This has the effect of inverting null geodesics.

If you use the same solutions for the interior and exterior I propose you get an inverted space time surface…then this stuff happens…

https://youtu.be/oIFjkYhNXkE

>why aren't you a billionaire like this cute girl?

>>14760824
>>14760907
Thanks for this anon
I know you're gone but it was very informative

>>14760805
I straight up thought it was just a shopped image of zuckerberg kek

>>14760774
This is a technically correct answer. For it would be impossible to prove dark matter is not poop.

>>14760756
dark matter comes from the blackhole and is responsible for evil, hence why blacks are evil and why jews who practice black majic and worship satan are evil, light/energy is what grows the universe and feeds the plants which feed the animals which fed us and brought us out of the darkness and into self awareness

>>14760756
>dark matter
Apparently, soientists somehow know that dark matter isn't just planets and clouds that are too dim to show up on our telescopes. So the theory is, perhaps instead there is some kind of mass that interacts with gravity but not with the electromagnetic force. Neutrinos are a candidate, and indeed they act primarily with gravity, and usually not with the electromagnetic force. But they do have electroweak interactions (the weak nuclear force interacts with the electromagnetic force); hence, neutrinos can only account for 1.5% of dark matter. So the rest of this dark matter is speculated to not interact with the weak force.
It is possible that dark matter has already been detected. Or, more precisely, a reaction that produces dark matter. The interaction of Gallium with a neutrino produces Germanium-71, but even after accounting for all detectable particles, there is a 20% deficit of mass-energy. Since conservation of energy has stubbornly clung on for the past 1,000 years, it seems quite possible that this reaction produces a particle that does not interact with the electromagnetic force, period. But more research is required--the anomaly could be an experimental error, but so far no such error has been shown.
>dark energy
Once upon the time, expansion was thought to be linear. However, galaxies that are further away appear to be accelerating away faster. Dark energy is a placeholder explanation. Some ToEs replace it with a fifth force, quintessence.

>>14760756
Dark matter and dark energy are made out of delusion.

>>14760756
leptons and the elusive dark quark

>>14760756
see: >>14762719
It's a mathematical cope for why the behavior of galaxies couldn't be explained by the Einsteinian understanding of gravity and "spacetime."

However, modern observations show that the universe is teeming with matter (thus galaxies weigh far more than they were thought to in the days when dark matter was necessary) and they're held together by strong electromagnetic currents, abrogating the need for supermassive black holes.

Really it's all outdated and needs a rethink. Plasma science is going to be the next paradigm for cosmology, and it's already being explored locally in our sun's environment.

>>14762731
The reason it is outdated is because angular momentum is not conserved.

>>14760756
Dark matter is kind of like when a CFO of a manufacturer is asked by the CEO to produce an earnings number that will satisfy the shareholders, so he makes up some numbers for the labour and overhead inputs to the inventory valuation to keep the stock from tanking.

>>14760756
it's words, sounds produced by scientists by opening mouth, used to make them appear as experts

>>14760756

They're made of Newtonuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu AKBAR!

>>14762316
Those experiments with gallium are really interesting. If anyone wants to look them up, they are from the Baksan Experiment on Sterile Transitions, which has the BEST acronym I have seen for an experiment.

>>14762731
>However, modern observations show that the universe is teeming with matter
Got a source on that? I have to give a talk on particle physics next week and I normally start with "Why are we interested in particle physics? Didn't they find the last puzzle piece 10 years ago? Well, first of all, it describes only three of the four known fundamental forces. The fact that I'm standing here talking to you is already physics beyond the standard model. Second of all, it only describes one fifth of the known matter in the universe."
If that number is not ~20% anymore, I need to update my slide.

>>14763503
Oops, it's 15, I just opened it. kek, I'm glad I have slides.

>>14760756

>>14760907
>This has lead to two competing explanations
Oh is that right.. Are THOSE the runner-up explanations to "gravity"...

>>14762316
>So the theory is, perhaps instead there is some kind of mass that interacts with gravity
So what, unless you're catholic and go to mass you don't matter?

>>14762742
If it's energy can be needlessly lost for no reason, it can be sneedlessly gained for no reason.

>>14764371
>Future spaceships will utilize angular momentum for travel
Based and John-pilled

>>14760756
Dark matter and dark energy are the gaps between what mainstream theories predict and what we see. They might be real things or might not. I think they are a bit too 'convenient' and are leading science down a very expensive wild goose chase and think it's worth investing more in theories that predict galaxy rotation and universe expansion without them.

>>14764380
retarded soience wants to waste $88 billion studying made up fake "dark matter"
>noooooo, we need to give soience twice as much money so they can waste even more on worthless, useless, made up soience bullshit for pretentious atheist lackwits
is soience is so smart and productive, how come they are always begging for free money like a bunch of welfare cheats? wheres all the profits from their genius and productivity?

>>14760756
It's garbage like 99.99% of science.

>>14764513
That picture is garbage. Among the several retarded misunderstandings on it, the concept of dark matter is older than the idea of dark energy by more than a century. It is fine to criticize mainstream scientific ideas, but you need to actually understand what those ideas are claiming and why they are considered mainstream if you want to want convince anyone. Not being able to get basic timeline shit right means no one will take you seriously.

>>14764380

It’s more like 1 + 1 + x = 3

It is certain that x = 1 but we do not know what results in producing x. Therefore the equation requires x.

>>14764946
This.
my biggest problem with dark matter is not that physicists are handwaving some possible error in gravity, but rather that they're handwaving a possible error in the prediction that only 5% of the universe's mass is baryonic and assuming that the gravitational anomaly can't possibly be caused by dead neutron stars and planets and other shit that's just too far away, dim and cold to see. Dark matter is plausible esp. in light of BEST but we should also admit that it's also possible that cosmology's prediction that only 5% of the universe's mass is baryonic could simply be wrong.

>>14760756
Darkness. It is literally in the name.

>>14764978
>the gravitational anomaly can't possibly be caused by dead neutron stars and planets and other shit that's just too far away, dim and cold to see
Isn't that pretty much excluded by observations such as the bullet cluster?
>X-ray image (pink) superimposed over a visible light image (galaxies), with matter distribution calculated from gravitational lensing (blue)
Dark matter passes through other dark matter with no significant interaction, the gas interacts and therefore lags behind.

>>14763503
>>14763506
There have been some good papers illustrating the primacy of normal matter in galactic formation and qualities. This 2016 paper shows that radial acceleration is directly related to baryonic matter concentrations, with no influence from unknown forms of matter or energy.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016PhRvL.117t1101M/abstract

In general terms though, more sensitive instruments used to observe space in recent years have discovered that the amount of gas in galaxies is higher than expected, and most of it is "cold." I would have to dig a bit deeper to get papers on that since it's not my area, but it essentially comes down to instrument error. We can only see matter which emits radiation "bright" enough to be seen billions if not trillions of lightyears away in our neck of the woods. The sharper our images become and the better our filtering gets, the dimmer "stuff" we can see.

>>14760756
non-ironically?
pure compium, no joke, the math doesn't line up, so after heavy malding they decided to cope by making up some thing that suddenly made the math line up with what they think should be, dark matter is as real as your waifu my nigga

>>14765498
This. It's their replacement for aether in the model, because aether is required for the universe to make sense.

>>14765454
>This 2016 paper shows that radial acceleration is directly related to baryonic matter concentrations, with no influence from unknown forms of matter or energy.
Nope. The two are related but not directly proportional, i.e. you do need some extra matter or a modification to gravity.
>In general terms though, more sensitive instruments used to observe space in recent years have discovered that the amount of gas in galaxies is higher than expected, and most of it is "cold."
It is not going to be solved by normal matter. If you try to put all dark matter as normal baryonic matter it will mess up other predictions, like the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and the abundances of light elements from big bang nucleosynthesis.

Everyone who says dark matter doesn't exist, explain picrel.
>X-ray image (pink) superimposed over a visible light image (galaxies), with matter distribution calculated from gravitational lensing (blue)

>>14765628
>It is not going to be solved by normal matter. If you try to put all dark matter as normal baryonic matter it will mess up other predictions, like the fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and the abundances of light elements from big bang nucleosynthesis.
There's a good case to be made that the CMB is just instrumentation error. Harouni's antenna in the former Soviet Union disproved the underpinnings of modern CMB anisotropy maps.

>>14765937
>There's a good case to be made that the CMB is just instrumentation error. Harouni's antenna in the former Soviet Union disproved the underpinnings of modern CMB anisotropy maps.
Right, 21st century instrumentation is BTFO by some Soviet antenna. "Disprove" implies that there is disagreement between two measurements and you have good reason to trust one measurement more than the other.
I tried googling this, but only found forum posts by people who sound like John Mandlbaur. Do you have anything non-schizo on this? Heroic stories how some Soviet guy single-handedly beats modern astronomy may be entertaining, but I find no technical description what his antenna does better than other telescopes.

>>14762157
It is one of the best posts I’ve seen in the last couple of years. I would simp for this anon.

>>14760756
we don't know, that's why they're called dark

next quesion

>>14764946
Not necessarily, The 3 is how much mass we think there should be according to current theories of gravity. The theories could be wrong or incomplete and it's actually supposed to be a 2 and there is no hidden mass.

>>14760756
Garbage just like most of science. Science only works on brainwashed overeducated indolent people.

>>14765893
Quantized Inertia predicts that gravity or inertial mass is different along the spin axis of the galaxies, which is where the gravitational lensing happens

>>14766702
The lensing is basically symmetric around the cluster cores.

>>14766704
Yep, 2 different theories predict it in the same places by different means. Many such cases, though QI does its other predictions falsifiably without any wiggle room from dark stuff

>>14765937
>There's a good case to be made that the CMB is just instrumentation error. Harouni's antenna in the former Soviet Union disproved the underpinnings of modern CMB anisotropy maps.
No it doesn't. Harouni never seriously published his result, and his claim comes from a single measurement that he referred to years later. He did make these claims at the time.
And we know quite clearly he's wrong today. Firstly the CMB has been detected by hundreds of telescopes. Rejecting all of those for one single claim is the definition of confirmation bias. But more directly modern CMB data shows the background exists. Galaxy cluster leave shadows on the CMB (the SZ effect). If the CMB were some instrumental error there is no it would know where distant galaxy clusters are. You could imagine the emission from the cluster contributing to a positive, but you can't have negative unless the background passes through the cluster. The SZ effect has been used to find hundreds of new confirmed clusters. This a fact, the SZ effect is real and so the CMB must be real.

>>14766717
Show me the mathematical QI prediction for the bullet cluster.

>>14766727
I did some digging and looks like it more predicts that the spin axis of the galaxies is along the collision axis based on where the gravitational lensing is, but more info is needed on the spin to seee if it actually is https://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-bullet-cluster.html . It needs more work, but it is an explanation of the bullet cluster with no dark matter

>>14766748
You really think that is an explanation? There is nothing quantitative. Its literally just a big "perhaps" and some handwaving. There isn't even a vague hint of how it might be calculated.

>>14766765
It's a plausible mechanism behind the bullet cluster. The 'perhaps' and handwavyness of it is no worse than dark matter as an explanation of galaxy rotation. Dark matter does not reach the standards you hold QI to

>>14766748
But I don't get it. The visible matter is significantly displaced from the "gravitational matter". Which one is supposed to interact with light? If it's different, how can the two kinds of matter of a single particle be light years apart?

>>14766797
>It's a plausible mechanism behind the bullet cluster.
It's not plausible at all. It's a guy basically saying "I don't know" while interweaving some buzzwords of his 12,000 rpm theory.

In fact, this guy is like Mandlbaur in intelligent. Somewhat schizo, but at least he can articulate himself without insulting everyone and everything. In the end, he still predicts the violation of the conservation of momentum though. That's a really big one. If you say this, you can't hide behind statements like
>but how this might fit with relativity I don't yet know

>>14766844
>It's a guy basically saying "I don't know"
You keep describing dark matter when talking about QI.
Regarding conservation of momentum, QI basically says it holds up within certain contexts, kinda like how relativity says Newtonian physics holds up within certain contexts.

>>14766797
>The 'perhaps' and handwavyness of it is no worse than dark matter as an explanation of galaxy rotation.
That is absolutely not true. From dark matter simulations you can predict the lensing profiles of galaxy clusters. It predicts the amount of lensing and the distribution.
I don't know how you can even claim it's plausible from that blog because the only thing he says is that he believes it can be explained. Nothing else. He has given the reader nothing to prove its plausability of his claim.

>>14766869
The guy is talking about photons having momentum and then says that he cannot connect this with relativity. What the hell?

>>14760756
>What is it made out of?
lies, greed and grandiose delusion

>>14760756
its gravity from other universes leaking into our universe :)

>>14765951
>Heroic stories how some Soviet guy single-handedly beats modern astronomy may be entertaining, but I find no technical description what his antenna does better than other telescopes.
It's located in a place that prevents interference by water refraction.