[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

/vt/ is now archived.Become a Patron!

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 405 KB, 2763x3900, 1563151130933.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10999500 No.10999500 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

>our models for the universe fail
>so let's add dark matter
>still not enough
>let's add dark energy
Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?

>> No.10999515

>Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?
The fact our observations do not match previous models necessitated the existence of dark matter/energy. We do not yet have a model that incorporates them, it is an open problem of physics.

>> No.10999526

>Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?
they are placeholders until we find out how to actually fix our model of the universe

>> No.10999529

>he doesn't fit the curve

>> No.10999531

>Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?

Dark energy was theorized to account for the expansion of the universe. It was originally thought that the expansion was slowing down, but our observations actually found that it was actually accelerating instead. Something unseen was driving this acceleration, thus Dark Energy

>> No.10999621
File: 48 KB, 600x600, 1549491957949.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>The fact our observations of the planets' trajectories do not match models that the Earth is the center of the universe with everything orbiting around it necessitates the existence of epicycles and deferents.
Why don't you realize how stupid this kind of argumentation is?
>muh placeholders
Just like miasma and ether were placeholders? These terms are deceptive.

>> No.10999684

What evidence are you expecting with modern technology? We already know of neutrinos, which are particles that interact so weakly they're barely detectable. It's hardly a leap to propose some new particle that interacts even more weakly. In fact, neutrinos were originally proposed because of a discrepancy in conservation of energy in radioactive decay, and it was decades before technology was sensitive enough to detect them. We're in a similar boat today with dark matter.
As for dark energy, we can determine by observation that the anomalous effects only manifest on ungodly distance scales, so the best we'll be able to do for a long time is make decent theoretical justifications.

>> No.10999699
File: 47 KB, 500x375, 1398756181028.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>can't even talk about something unless you know exactly what it is

That's not how this works

Also, deceptive or not, placeholders are necessary. If we didn't extrapolate on the ether theory we probably wouldn't have come to understand how electromagnetic waves propagate.

>> No.10999715

>Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?
how about this?

oh wait i forgot, people who repost this usually are too innumerate to appreciate how data agrees with the model prediction. you need a picture like a baby. look up the "bullet cluster"

>> No.10999721
File: 309 KB, 1276x870, t.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

forgot pic, damnit

>> No.10999735
File: 134 KB, 800x578, 800px-1e0657_scale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Have you heard about the bullet cluster? There are multiple observations of that are consistent with the theory of dark matter.

>> No.10999778

They're just placeholder names for "those two things we can't explain".

>> No.10999834

>They're just placeholder names for "those two things we can't explain".
this is the thing that bothers me to no end.

It is already making a huuuuge presumption to assume they have it down to just these
"two unknowns"

I have a very strong feeling there is much more to the problem and that many, if not all of our scientific models are wrong or incomplete.

In fact I would estimate that the current theories and models for gravity and electromagnetism, (light, electromagnetic propagation, etc) are missing some subtle, yet very critical things that would cause this so-called problem of the models of the universe that make them want to imagine some "dark matter" or dark energy"
the only reason they imagine these hypotheticals is because the mathematics of the current models tell them there is something wrong, something missing.

its like having a bad speedometer in your car that tells you your travelling 2x as fast as you think you are, and then instead of checking the gauge, you just assume it's perfect and go about all these ridiculous machinations and contrived formulas and imaginary hidden forces to make the bad sensor data fit everything else you think you already know for sure about physical reality

obviously we need theories, models, measurement, observation,
but this "dark" crap it's all a load of bollocks

>> No.10999869

>I have a very strong feeling there is much more to the problem and that many, if not all of our scientific models are wrong or incomplete.

So does any scientist worth their weight in salt. That's the beauty of science, it's an unfolding process of getting rid of what doesn't work with better theories that explain more and more phenomena. It's a bit like the evolutionary process

>> No.10999924

Nice data fitting.
>It's a bit like the evolutionary process
Science and evolution are nothing alike.

>> No.10999931

Ether actually exists though

>> No.10999939

Ether theory is correct, though. All Michaelson-Morley proved was that the ether doesn't move around when you poke it--which is fucking obvious since all objects pass through it constantly

>> No.10999948

>it's an unfolding process of getting rid of what doesn't work with better theories
OK let's replace Dark Matter theory with a sack of dogshit.

>> No.10999961


>getting rid of what doesn't work
>trying new solutions
>keeping what does work

Yeah doesn't sound like evolution at all, my bad

>> No.10999970


Explain how dog shit out in space decribes more phenomena thay current dark matter theories and I'll go along with it because I'm not emotionally invested in the explanation unlike you seem to be

>> No.10999975

it's just luminiferous aether

>> No.11001158

you fundamentally dont understand how evolution or science work. neither fit your description. science is a directed effort toward optimal mathematical models, evolution is the unfolding of matter where complex structures emerge and circumstancially satisficing ones persist and spread

>> No.11001244

And yet you didn't refute a single one of my assertions.

>> No.11001245

>the onus is on you to describe why my retarded theory is shit

>> No.11001248


>implying dark matter or dark energy are my theories

>> No.11001249

>implying our models could be wrong
it's reality that's wrong
>mfw physicists talk shit about economics

>> No.11001255

>It is already making a huuuuge presumption to assume they have it down to just these
>"two unknowns"
Literally no one does that except the strawmen in your head though.

>> No.11001881

Well, since they cause the observed effects, then they exist?

>> No.11001891

It's not the first time to happen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_Neptune

>> No.11001914

>Is there any evidence that dark matter and dark energy actually exist?

>> No.11001957
File: 79 KB, 686x385, bhp_life_on_earth.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>dark matter
>dark energy
maybe, physicist don't even know what "dark energy" really is, supposedly it was theorized to explain the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe

watch this video https://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_burchat_leads_a_search_for_dark_energy

>> No.11001981

A sack of dog shit would absorb some light and reflect some. So you couldn't see through it and when you shine light on it, you see it. What we observe, is *something* that does gravitation, but is completely translucent and non-reflective. Therefore, dark matter (I don't like the term dark, as it implies it absorbs light) describes the observations whereas your theory doesn't. If you find matter that interacts gravitationally, but not with light, it's a good candidate for dark matter. Dog shit is not.

>> No.11001989

it could be some special kind of dog shit

>> No.11001991

it could be the souls of the living beings that have died

>> No.11001996

Then describe it better. The concept of dark matter just describes what we see, not what we think it is. It's like the first humans calling solids "hard matter" and liquids "wet matter" because there's some difference but we don't have a good explanation on why they're different.

>> No.11002183

what if the problem lies in the fact that we are flawed in our understanding and explanations of "regular matter" and its all of its various modes, actions and operations within the vast universe, most of which, we know fuck all about

right now we have models that insist that "light, matter, energy, gravity, magnetism are supposed to act like [x, given a,b+/-y]"

what i'm saying is they've got it wrong to start with. we don't even know for sure what really makes up an atomic particle or how it really works or why

and now they've gone ahead and extrapolated the whole business to the universe. strikes of sheer buffoonery

>> No.11002237

>we don't even know for sure what really makes up an atomic particle or how it really works or why
But we do. To a very high degree. And we continuously do high-precision tests of our current understanding of physics.

>> No.11002242

Doesn’t matter. The models work. Science doesn’t give a shit what “exists”.
Make a better model if it triggers you.

>> No.11002245

>The models work
apparently they don't work if they are forced to make up imaginary factors to make them fit reality

>> No.11002249

>apparently they don't work

Yes they do. The inclusion of material that only interacts via the gravitational force matches perfectly with observations.

If you don’t like it, make a better model.

>> No.11002268


>make a better model


>> No.11002277

>if they are forced to make up imaginary factors
Strange quarks
Charm quarks
Colour charge
The Higgs mechanism including the Higgs boson

That's how it's done. And there's always that one brainlet who cries "you can't just make up things"

Sure, until it's proven, it's just a theory on what it could be. But everyone sees that there is *somthing*. And please don't start with modified newtonian dynamics. It just doesn't work out.

>> No.11002296

A good place to start would be reformulating GTR from space-time coordinates into space-interval ones (where "time" is meant in time-objective sense, and "interval" is essentially time-subjective), leaving time(-objective) out of the fucking equations.

>> No.11002307

I'm an experimentalist, not a theorist. Someone tells me "Hey, maybe axions exist and they could explain dark matter", so I build a detector that could detect them. If I don't, that theory is likely considered to be ruled out and has to be modified or disregarded.
If you're skilled in mathematics, I invite you to do the reformulation. I honestly can't see the benefit from that reformulation, but if you think, it's a good idea, it might be.

>> No.11002333

1) The ability to reason and predict, scientific reasoning included, hinges upon irreversibility of the reality.
2) Godel has discovered that GTR allows for solutions with looped worldlines. Let us take the conditions that produced solution with a loop, and let us take another, infinitely close set of conditions that does however not, producing instead a sort of a spiral in the corresponding place. If we, in our mind, continuously shift the initial conditions from the second ones to first ones, the spiral will degenerate into loop. This thought experiment makes it apparent there must exist a hidden variable to GTR, somehow connected to the "loop counter" (because same point of the loop corresponds to different poits on different curls of the spiral).
3) That hidden variable is observer's clock/time-subjective. That xyzt can be thought of as functions of i implies xyzi can be thought of as functions of t.
4) Incidentally, only time-subjective is ever observable, time-objective is always inferred about.
5) Any phenomenons in which causality (time-objective), irreversibility, seemingly breaks are literally something lying outside of scope of science. Chances are, some things we'll never know.

>> No.11002338
File: 126 KB, 1131x622, 1538256686715.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>our models for quadratic equations fail
>so lets add dark numbers

>> No.11002471


The point is that galaxies are more gravitationally bound than the matter we observe can account for, thus it is theorized that there is some sort of "dark matter" which does not interact with light causing the discrepency.

>> No.11002475

we need new models, not imaginary matter

face it, newtonian physics is busted

>> No.11002489

There is evidence which supports the hypothesis that there is dark matter, but that evidence doesn't uniquely identify matter as the reason for the problem. For dark energy, there is evidence for it since everything in physics is energy. You can't say for sure that the energy is in the cosmological constant like they think it is. So, you can at least be certain that energy is the cause of the dark energy effect even when we cannot be certain that matter is the cause of the dark matter effect.

>> No.11002496

>we need new models, not imaginary matter

Dark matter is no more imaginary than normal baryonic atoms.

>> No.11002499

Introducing energy literally only ever make sense in the context of there existing such things as isolated systems. Guess what, the act of detection is the particular of the act of interaction with the system. No system experimented upon is ever isolated, or one wouldn't get any reading out of it.

>> No.11002503
File: 28 KB, 579x328, astrophysics.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11002504

Not at all, just an effect that we can detect and attribute it to those two unobtainiums. Thats what the standard model is based on.

>> No.11002508

dark mater is just sub atomic particles. stars bleed them constantly. the sun has been observed doing it and its a known thing. every solar flare tons get kicked out into space but there is a passive bleed from the surface

due to sub atomic particles being in space its logical that they would be in motion and from time to time due to the lay of the land and their flight paths they may achieve very high velocities due to all manner of things like crumpled space due to gravitational fields colliding warping space and then black hole emissions being blasted through them because black holes have massive gravitation fields and end up in the web of crumpled space and other sub atomic particles flying through the crumpled space being blasted. when sub atomic particles collide energy is produced some times yielding fusion and larger matter at atom + scale being blasted yields energy in fission. this is the alleged dark energy. sub atomic particles being formed into larger scale mater and being broken over time

on paper its fine. as to weather or not it answers the question is another thing entirely. the opposing theory is that the energy for electrons to stay in orbit counts for mass and that allows the universe to not have all the matter torn apart by centrifical (centripedal / centrifugal alternate designations) force

the problem for the counter theory is that velocity then equals mass and this would snow ball in some simulations and would always put terminal velocity out of reach

>> No.11002509

what does not fit the data?
the existing models?
like i said, new models

also, just stop calling it "dark matter" and "dark energy"
science doesn't have evidence of some secret matter or energy, science has evidence that our current models don't work

>> No.11002518

or maybe gravity isn't quite understood

>> No.11002522


>> No.11002524

>the existing models?

They fit it just fine. Dark matter is in agreement with observation.

>science doesn't have evidence of some secret matter or energy


>science has evidence that our current models don't work

They’re part of the models, moron.

>> No.11002526

Wow, what a novel idea!

Formulate a new theory of gravity, test it, use it to explain away the dark matter, and come back

>> No.11002532

>hurrdurr we need new models
You don't even understand the current ones, stop whining. We have a model that works. That model describes:
>gravitational lensing
>structure formation
>rotational behaviour of galaxies
>galaxy clusters
>the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background
If you have a model which already describes all your observations, why do you cry for new models? Because it goes against what you can see with your own eyes?

Do we also need new models instead of "believing in" quantum physics?

>> No.11002536


>> No.11002541

spot on

>> No.11002547

if the models fit, then they wouldn't need to make up imaginary factors

>> No.11002555

>if the models fit, then they wouldn't need to make up imaginary factors

Dark matter is no more imaginary than atoms or photons.

>> No.11002558

I have just proved Riemann hypothesis using dark numbers and dark equations, this shit is easy

>> No.11002596

The idea that GR needs modification doesn't fit the data. Any model that tries to make modifications, or just replaces GR entirely, ends up contradicting way more experimental data than GR without dark matter does.

>> No.11002610

Why do you think it's imaginary?

>> No.11002629

not saying the data or the evidence is imaginary. just that it seems like applying theoretical terms like "dark" this and that sounds wrong. why can't it simply be some unknown fundamental operation of matter and existing forces?

>> No.11002633

I'm also not 100% happy with the term dark. Call it invisible if you like, it's a better description. Or matter-that-interacts-via-gravitation-but-not-via-electromagnetism.

>> No.11002671

yes, thank you. this is more digestible

>> No.11002678

Okay i have a question and dont know how to say it succinctly but here's my thought-

So if science has a "model" for the expansion of the universe and this theory include a "big bang" or something.
then its been sort of analogous to a huge explosion?
and during an explosion, things accelerate outward form the ignition point, right?
at what point during an explosion does the increasing acceleration subside and the explosive outward movement begin to slow?

could it be that the expansion of the universe is simply not yet at the point where the increase in acceleration has stopped increasing?

what is it that science has or uses that say the universe *is not* supposed to be accelerating its outward expansion?

>> No.11002700

How is that data collected, considering GR works with the "objective" time coordinate, while all the experimental time-related data is assessed using subjective (their own frame of reference) clocks?

>> No.11002716

In other words, what seems to me to be a highly shifty moment in GR is that objective time, which is one of the basic variables in it, is simply experimentally unmeasurable through any direct means whatsoever.

>> No.11002718

There is no objective time coordinate. All coordinates are subjective, and correspond to the subjective clock readings you're talking about. What's objective is the spacetime interval along paths, which can be translated to coordinate times and vice versa.

>> No.11002732

Suppose two small enough clocks collide , synchronize at that moment, then, later after whatever adventures collide again. Obvioualy their time measurements at the time of aecond collision will be different / unsynched yet again - yet aren't their worldlines (in GR coordinates), at least, concerning respective points of actual contact, supposed to be touching in the point corresponding to that second collision? If so, then GR-time is obviously a thing different from clock measurements, since the former ones will be synched for the second collision, and the latter ones would not.

>> No.11002739

The spacetime interval along a path is a function of that path, so even if the clocks have the same start and end points, their spacetime intervals (and thus clock readings) will be different if they follow different spacetime paths.

>> No.11002748

Yes, but only those intervals are directly measurable, no?

>> No.11002752

Wait, there is a better way to formulate it.

>> No.11002755

You can also measure on your own clock the subjective time interval between the initial and final clock collisions, and use the math of GR to relate the intervals with your coordinate time measurement.

>> No.11002821

>then its been sort of analogous to a huge explosion?

A much better analogy is the old “inflating balloon” one.

>and during an explosion, things accelerate outward form the ignition point, right?

All points are accelerating away from all other points.

>at what point during an explosion does the increasing acceleration subside and the explosive outward movement begin to slow?

The weird part is that it apparently sped up, then slowed down, and started accelerating again.

>> No.11002830

So your only problem was that it was called dark? I mean, we've called particles we didn't understand "strange" before and even invented the quantum number "strangeness". Then we found out it's actually just the third lightest quark and named it strange quark.

>> No.11002832

>apparently sped up, then slowed down, and started accelerating again.
i think it's all perfectly natural and we shouldn't really worry about it

>> No.11002835

There is no "outward" because space itself is expanding, not random shit is flying through space.

>> No.11002848

>i think it's all perfectly natural and we shouldn't really worry about it

It’s pretty weird shit.

>> No.11002863
File: 27 KB, 579x314, unnamed.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


>> No.11002914

I don't have to, there are theories out there that are discarded ad hoc due to not agreeing with the echo chamber that is the standard model.

>> No.11002916

i think the department of economics has the very same motto

>> No.11002918

Nope, they are discarded because either they dont work or are mere internet pseudoscience bullshit.

>> No.11002936

A theory that doesn't extend the standard model but is incompatible with the standard model has a tough fate. Your new theory would need to agree with decades of precision tests of said standard model.

>> No.11004172

Come to think of it, what has CERN accomplished in recent times? They claimed to provide news on lepton universality among other things, yet I hear nothing but false positives.

>> No.11004251

LHC has been offline since Dec 2018 while they upgrade the luminosity of the beam. The upgrade should be done in another year.

>> No.11004830

>he thinks they'll tell everyone when they discover revolutionary shit

>> No.11004929

What do you mean by recent times? H->bb was discovered last year. For example. There are a lot of precision tests of the standard model and so far the universe behaves like the standard model predicts.

>> No.11005365


>> No.11005381

>dark matter
It was proven by symulation and by observation that dark matter exists.

>dark energy
Dark energy is just an another made up parameter to adjust the evidences to the expanding universe theory.

>> No.11005406

You're absolutely right OP, it must be god instead!

>> No.11008241

Don't die

>> No.11009895


>> No.11009932

By your argumentation, I can completely ignore your attempt at critique by asking
>where is your evidence that it does not exist?
The rest of the model is accurate. Dark matter/energy are the hypothesis we have (among others), so those are the ones we're trying to figure out (among others). The basis for the hypothesis stands on the mathematics, and results obtained following the incomplete model, which - while imperfect and incomplete - is quite accurate in describing what it can describe.

You, on the other hand, have absolutely no basis to disagree with dark energy or dark matter beyond not understanding why those are the working hypothesis; not knowing enough math, history, or contemporary science to justify your decent; and refusing to acknowledge that you know so little about mathematics and science as to a priori invalidate any criticism you might have.

You won't even bother to think about why you're being dismissed. You'll just balk at the idea that you don't have the same level of authority as the various researchers, physicists, and mathematicians whose claims you're trying to dispute. You think your ideas about the subject are just as valid as theirs, and the only basis you have for that is that you thought them up.

>> No.11009941

cosmological constant is not a "made up parameter" lol

>> No.11010108 [DELETED] 

>It was proven by symulation
a simulation is essentially an equation, all it "proves" is that it "could" work

>> No.11010127

the standard model is so beautiful, i want to have sex with it

>> No.11010134

Lick those boots, Anon. If you lick them harder, maybe they will give you a dark wage rise.

>> No.11010135 [DELETED] 

imagine if the effect of "dark energy" was just a bunch of massive fucking things outside our observable region

>> No.11010138 [DELETED] 

get a drawfag to make standard-model-chan

>> No.11010142
File: 44 KB, 200x200, balloon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Maybe the stars really are gods and can move in whatever way they want.

You could add dark matter pockets with ridiculous shapes to explain the movement of a dog, or you could accept that the dog is self-moving.

>> No.11011386

I'm a billionaire in anti-de Sitter space

>> No.11011687

That's a lot of photons when you think about it

>> No.11011691

Wow, your model agrees with the data for a whole 1/90 of the graph. Truly incredible.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.