[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 456 KB, 745x727, the myth of dark matter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8949486 No.8949486 [Reply] [Original]

>1: there is a fuckton of literally invisible matter out there that has no reason for existing and no known way to function
>2: our theories on gravity dont work on larger scales
why do scientists claim 1 is more likely?

>> No.8949487

>>8949486
because our theories on gravity do work on larger scales?

>> No.8949505

>>8949486
Well:
>There's no reason to believe every particle use every possible interaction
>Cold dark matter is incredibly predictive

>> No.8949506

>>8949487
>discrepancy so enormous you have to invent a placeholder matter that composes of more exotic matter than there is normal matter in the entire universe.

>> No.8949528

>>8949486
Read Hossenfelder's blog, she goes into detail on this without being too biased. Put simply it could still go either way.

>> No.8949536

>>8949528
>Hossenfelder's blog
Get the fuck out you fucking brainlet.

>> No.8949541

>>8949536
I'll admit I don't know too much about relativity, but what's wrong with the blog?

>> No.8949549

>>8949541
She's middle of the road on fucking everything. And this is a perfect example, CDM is incredibly predictive for such a simple hypothesis, no other model/hypothesis/theory comes close to it. Yet despite its success she still (according to you) says it could go either way. No, I'm sorry but current evidence points in favour of CDM.

>> No.8949551

>maths incredibly off
>assumptions must be right
>calculations are right
>qed faeries exist.

Obviously ya'all clapped too hard.

>> No.8949561

>>8949486
This always really bothered me about dark matter, but I always sort of assumed that greater minds than mine had better reasons than simple balancing their equations with their observations. to claim that a wholly intangible thing exists in great quantities throughout the universe.

>> No.8949565

>>8949561
Disregard dark matter fags and treat them with the same ridicule that give to religionfags

>> No.8949566

>>8949549
the fact that there isn't currently a better model than CDM doesn't make CDM a good model

>> No.8949579

>>8949566
It's predictive power makes it a good model.

>> No.8950695

>>8949486
Because 1 is predictive and no experiments indicate anything that suggests 2. Dark matter is probably the fifth fundamental force necessary for getting to a theory of everything, and each of the other forces also seemed like make believe BS too when they were close to being discovered.

>> No.8950991

>>8949486
First one is a dead end and every day more ridiculous, let them sink and lose credibility, I hope.

>> No.8951042

>>8949486
>I have no science education
>I'm sure every scientist is wrong because my mom told me I'm special

>> No.8951525

>>8949486
>implying the first thing the didn't do wasn't make sure there current understanding was correct
>not understanding that dark matter is just a placeholder term for several competing theories
Cause fuck all other evidence that supports anything

>> No.8951746
File: 1.44 MB, 1600x1067, 1496083205461.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8951746

>>8949486
>1: there is a fuckton of literally invisible matter out there that has no reason for existing and no known way to function

Said no one credible ever. It is just dust and matter that isn't lit up very well or detectable by our really shitty instruments.

>2: our theories on gravity dont work on larger scales

It has nothing to do with gravity per se, but has everything to do with entropy. Due to entropy, you will see the same patterning regardless of how macro or micro you view things.

>your pic

Only one of those exists in the manner shown and that is the one on the far right. We can see galactic filaments. We don't have enough info on "big bang" which is an outdated theory now. We have long since stopped using that representation of atoms.

>>8951042
This.

>> No.8951776

>>8949486

1 is more likely because it merely means there is yet another elementary particle that happens to interact only gravitationaly, which is nothing unexpected and in fact predicted by many standard model extensions

2 means force of gravity works differently on larger scales which would be really weird and unexpected


in fact claiming that there is something wrong with dark matter hypothesis is a sure sign of a brainlet or a crackpot, there is a reason real scientists consider it likely to be true and prefer it over MOND theories

>> No.8951873

>theory doesn't work
>alter theory so that it matches observations
>theory now works
wait, I thought /sci/ LIKED the scientific method?

>> No.8951900
File: 86 KB, 500x628, 1377242007343.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8951900

>>8949506
What's the issue?

>> No.8951933

>>8949506
if you have a better explanation, then fucking spit it out. If not, then you're making a non-scientific claim. Shut the fuck up.

>> No.8952976

>>8951900
Nothing until people start treating those placeholders for "We don't know any other way to have this work without our model being wrong" as an explanation and not a non-scientific claim. See:
>>8951933

>> No.8952995

>>8949528
Take anything on that blog with a pinch of salt, a big one. She wrote an article a while back about the Bullet Cluster being inconsistent with CDM but what she actually did was lie about what the papers said and misrepresent the numbers completely. It's just total crap, what she doesn't say is that the whole question of merger velocity was built on a false assumption about the observations. She admitted in the comments that it was entirely biased (although denied lying) but maintained she was just making some fucked up point while misleading everyone reading who isn't a cosmologist.

>> No.8953376

>>8949486
>3 Dyson spheres are abundant and hard to see.

>> No.8953402

>>8952976
But that isn't what people are saying. They're saying there's baryonic matter of some sort that we can't currently observe. That's it.

Look, I was on the dark-matter-is-bullshit train for a long time. But, then I realized the implications of planet 9. There might be a planet as large as Neptune orbiting out in the Kuiper Belt and we can't find it because our instruments are shitty relative to the incomprehensibly vastness of space.

I mean, let that shit sink in. We struggling to observe a large planet orbiting our own star. Think of how much stuff is floating around out there that we can't see. And that doesn't even touch on "exotic" matter that we might not even be looking for in the right way.

So, rather than throwing out a highly predictive theory and attempting to replace it with something new, the most parsimonious thing to do is say the hypothesis that has been verified literally every single time its been tested is probably right and we just can't observe all the fucking matter in the god damn universe.

>> No.8953675

>>8949528
>Hossenfelder
Anyone siding with Woit and Smolin is pretty much irrelevant.
Crackpot index: 30+
Wew, lad.

>> No.8953733

>>8953402

>There might be a planet as large as Neptune orbiting out in the Kuiper Belt and we can't find it because our instruments are shitty relative to the incomprehensibly vastness of space.

That is really unlikely but anyway, a Neptune sized planet is a miniscule mass when compared to our solar system. When you find several solar systems worth of mass in the kuiper belt, then we can talk about it being enough. Thinking that DM is baryonic is almost as bad as straight DM denialism.

>> No.8954121

>>8953733
What makes that unlikely in your eyes?

>> No.8954135

>>8953376
We would see them with our current instruments unless the dyson spheres are thermodynamically closed systems which would require new physics to explain.

>> No.8954178

>>8949486
Because they are afraid of scientific revolutions.

t. Thomas Kuhn

>> No.8954189
File: 97 KB, 850x400, quote-as-in-political-revolutions-so-in-paradigm-choice-there-is-no-standard-higher-than-the-assent-of-thomas-kuhn-307538.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8954189

>>8954178

>> No.8954216

>>8949486
Dark matter has been solved it's just black holes, that are tremendously more numerous that we thought, the fact that we already detected 2 pairs of black holes merging in a few month with a shitty detector proves it. You just need to wait a few weeks for someone to make the proper calculation and publish it.

>> No.8955939

>>8949551
This. It couldn't possibly be that the math was just wrong or the beliefs about gravity were wrong. No. There must be invisible, untestable magic shit everywhere.

>> No.8955940

>>8949579
What predictive power? Is this like how we claim Einstein predicted gravitational lensing when he didn't?

>> No.8955957

>>8955940
Einstein might not have, nut his GR certainly did.

>> No.8955965

>>8949486
We can control and understand every force except for gravity.

All ideas are open.
mine? It's an interaction with higher dimensions, something we perceive as time

This "dark matter" is simply matter outside of our 3 dimensional understanding

>> No.8955985

>>8955939
>untestable
But it is testable. In fact it's made a lot of predictions.

>> No.8956048

>>8951933

Dark matter more absurd a construct than anything STEMlords make fun of, even - and especially - withing the parameters of Scientism.

>> No.8956055

>>8956048
What the fuck makes it absurd?
Do you realize 100 years ago we couldn't look at singular molecules, let alone atoms? Similarly, we could not physically observe other galaxies and though them to be regular stars. Understanding of things is a cumulative, not definitive process. Science does not find something, then dusts its hands off and stop giving a fuck about it forever.

>> No.8956061

>>8956055

Molecules, atoms, and galaxies were random parts of various thought experiments before their observation was claimed. Some world models depended on them, some didn't, some only incidentally included them, some precluded them. Dark Matter is a fundamental fudge factor, THE fundamental one, vital to all aspect of Empricism/Positivism/Materialism/Scientism.

>> No.8956095

>>8956061

Dark Matter is no more of a fudge factor than any other measured quantity such as mass of an electron is.

Some things cannot be predicted from first principles (yet) and have to be measured and then their value inserted into calculations to make models work.

You will find "dark matter like" factors EVERYWHERE in science. Correction, you will not, because you are a brainlet and wont ever be a scientist, but actual scientists use such factors very often, because it is logically sound and it works.

You may continue to blabber about "hurr durr just make a better model" while actual cosmologists will happily ignore such pseudoscientific nonsense and continue to uncover the true nature of the universe - including the fact that it contains lots of transparent matter.

>> No.8956122

>>8956061
>vital to all aspect of Empricism/Positivism/Materialism/Scientism.
Literally what the fuck are you talking about son?

Not a physfag so I don't know shit about this, is it as absurd as the idea of a shadowbiosphere, or do we just lack the tools to properly measure it?

>> No.8956130

>>8956122
don't listen to him, it's just another form of matter, like antimatter, except instead of annihilating on contact with regular matter, it doesn't do shit

>> No.8956163

>>8949486
Because gravity does work on those scales, there are just sources of gravity that don't appear to exist. It isn't that the math is wrong. There are detectable gravity sources that when you aim telescopes at them, appear to be empty space.

>> No.8956189

>>8956095

Everything you said confirms my point. There are Dark Matter-like fudge factors everywhere in Science because the whole thing is based on a fudge factors and cannot exist without them. Your description of what "actual Scientists" do is exactly what people deride them for. Any claim of Empiricism precludes principles, things being "logically sound" or "working".

>> No.8956190

>>8956130
>it doesn't do shit - science 2017

>> No.8956200

>>8956190
go climb back on a fucking tree and eat leaves you fucking retard

>> No.8956209

>>8956200

BACK on a tree? I'm not an "actual Scientist"...

>> No.8956214

>>8956200
>readily admitting your default mental state is bestiality

You can't make this up.

>> No.8956228

>>8956189

there are "fudge factors" in science because unless you know EVERYTHING from first principles, you need certain "fudge factors" to account for certain things in your model

and there is nothing wrong with that, it is rational and actually works

people who deride scientists (especially hard sciences) are illogical idiots and nobody should be listening to them

>> No.8956229

>>8956189
>I don't like theories with adjustable parameters
>Literally fucking everything needs to follow from theory

Thats so fucking dumb it's unreal, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

>> No.8956470
File: 61 KB, 412x398, 1405183088708.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8956470

>millions of dollars invested into the search for DM by actual scientists
>meanwhile on 4chan
>"lol maybe the model is wrong" as if it's not the first thing that's being thoroughly checked

>> No.8956526

>>8956470
>Appealing to authority in science where the status quo can turn upside down any day

>>8956189
If it works, its right. Propose another model if you hate dm so much

>> No.8956598

>>8956526
>Authority was wrong in the past
>Which is why instead of listening to them let's discuss the subject with a bunch of clueless high schoolers who whose input doesn't go any further than "I don't like DM"
But hey, as long as you're having fun it's all good.

>> No.8957231

>>8955985
>it is testable.
how?

>> No.8957310
File: 27 KB, 579x314, astrophysics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8957310

>>8949486

>> No.8957343
File: 200 KB, 778x675, germ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8957343

>Listening to Astrophysics-fags

>> No.8957347

All the talk on this subject seems to be either about some kind of MOND or forms of Dark matter. What are some other shit that has been explored? There must be people who had alternative ideas, no?

>> No.8957746

>>8957231
Gravitational detection of the particles themselves as they pass nuclei on Earth, possible detection of the breakdown of the particles into more conventional matter and surprise lensing events from an otherwise invisible cluster off the top of my head.

None of which have been successful so far, but until it's constrained to ludicrous parameters it's still under review.

>> No.8957768

>>8949486
reminder that dark matter/energy is just micro black holes that are mostly invisible.

>> No.8957931

>>8956228
>>8956229

Empiricism precludes principle and theory. Look up the definition of these words on wiktionary if you're this confused.

>> No.8957933

>>8957310
>doesn't fit the data

What's the problem? The data doesn't fit empirical observation. The empirical observation doesn't fit the a priori data. The data barely fits itself. It's settled! It works! Bitch!

>> No.8958201

>>8950695
>>8949579
Epicycles also made good predictions.

>> No.8958210

>>8956526
Epicycles worked too.

>> No.8958219

>>8956048
What about string theory?

>> No.8958256

>>8957931
Fuck off philosonigger.

>> No.8958490

>>8958201
>>8958210
Epicycles was a data fitting model. It allowed the modeller to fit just about any data as additional parameters could be added to arbitrary precision. It had as many adjustable parameters as you like. Cold Dark Matter is actually a very simple model, over no dark matter cosmology it adds only a single additional parameter when fitting the CMB for example. It can be simulated much better than normal matter because of it's simplicity. CDM, unlike epicycles, cannot be made to do whatever you want. Epicycles made good predictions because it was just an expansion of existing data.

>>8957933
>The data barely fits itself.
What the fuck are you even trying to say?

>> No.8958782

>>8954135
>implying Dyson spheres aren't just hyper efficient so the only radiation they produce leads to the a 2.7K microwave background

>> No.8958799

>>8957746
ah so it still might as well be anything, including an error in math or assumptions.

>> No.8959369

>>8958799
>it still might as well be anything
that's not how science works, Billy

>> No.8960119

>>8958256
>claims to know the underpinnings of the cosmos
>doesn't even know his own language

>> No.8960169

>>8958210
>>8958201
Yes? And?

>> No.8960216

Why do you think every particle has to interact via the electromagnetic or strong-forces?