/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3058378]

Can someone please explain to me what dark matter is?

[Anonymous No.3058393]

Dark matter is the most logical explanation for the observation of anomalies in galactic rotation.

[Anonymous No.3058395]

a conspiracy by evil scientists trying to abolish the holy word of God from the mminds of the future generation

[Anonymous No.3058401]

>>3058378
Darkness is the veil of light. for without this dark shield we would be totally blinded by all of the atomic light.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3058411]

Matter that emits very little to no electromagnetic energy, specifically in the visible range.

Black holes
massive compact halo objects
neutrinos
neutron stars
faint old white dwarfs
brown dwarfs

[Anonymous No.3058414]

Matter which doesn't give off radiation (ie light), so its completely invisible. We've never found any or even seen it with a telescope, but we think there must be some matter out there we can't see because something we can't see is influencing the stuff we can with gravity.

[Anonymous No.3058426]

dark matter is another name for "we dont know shit so lets give this shit we dont know anyting about a name"

kinda like string theory, its baseless theorizing

[Anonymous No.3058427]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

[Anonymous No.3058446]

>>3058426
It's a lot less baseless than you think. There are only so many options which can explain it, and they essentially narrow it down as much as they can with the available information. The discrepancies in the speeds of spiral galaxies are probably not due to relativity being wrong (maybe it is though! and it would be terrific if someone found the right gravity), especially when it is taken into account that theories which can account for other problems in relativity (I mean string theory accounting for black holes and shit) have the same problem with spiral galaxies.

So it's probably some kind of matter, and that's essentially all that has been stated. They try not to say too much about it precisely because they are careful to not talk out of their asses.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3058455]

>>3058378
(Introduction to modern cosmology) 'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

[Anonymous No.3058463]

OP, disregard everyone.
Listen.
It has been observed that galaxies, according to their spin, size, etc they shouldn't act like they act, to justify their behavior there SHOULD be more matter.
But that matter is nowhere to be found.
So scientists hypothesize that there is more matter in the galaxies which can't be observed, if that additional matter is included to the equation, galaxy spin, distances etc are ok.

Its a patch for galactic scale gravitation.

[Anonymous No.3058467]

Things that matter to darkies. Like watermelons and welfare stamps.

[Anonymous No.3058472]

>>3058463
Oh, so the current laws of physics can't explain something so they say "its must be dark matter"?

[Anonymous No.3058486]

It's regular matter at absolute zero.

[Anonymous No.3058492]

>>3058472
This is how all science works, inductive logic.
There's no other way around.

Unless you have something better than science to propose.

[Anonymous No.3058501]

>>3058492
magic

[Anonymous No.3058504]

>>3058472
It could be something else; do you have any ideas?

[Anonymous No.3058523]

>>3058472

I don't see how saying "it's dark matter" is wrong at all. Obviously it has to be something, and since we don't know what to call it and we can't see it, why not call it "dark"?

[Anonymous No.3058542]

>>3058504
It might be because different part of galaxies arrive at different times at our times, with millions billion of years apart, making the galaxies spin at different speeds they actually spin.

Relativity seems solid, so the other thing is that our perception of light might be affected by many factors.
Light is tricky.

[Anonymous No.3058548]

>>3058542

I'm pretty sure people have already thought of and discounted that possibility.

[Anonymous No.3058550]

I'm totally just going to make something up right now. Dark Matter is clumps of gravitons that flow in and out of matter exchanging the force of gravity. When enough are concentrated over many thousands of light years the bosons get an extra range of influence.

What does /sci/ think? Possible?

[Anonymous No.3058553]

>>3058550
This is sort of what string theorists are thinking up, except its gravity from other universes.

Michio Kaku said it, not me.

[Anonymous No.3058556]

>>3058548
Ye that was my first thought.
But we haven't understood fully all things about light from outerspace, if you trace the history of space 'exploration' it was one faulty measurement of light after another.

Our only communication of outer space is light, isomething tiny we dont know might affect it, like black holes being at the center of galaxies most of the times etc.

[Anonymous No.3058569]

>>3058472
Dark matter is just the term use for a specific phenomia. We don't actually know what dark matter is completely, but we do have to name it so we can refer to this phenomia.

We named the phenomia of electricity, before we found out what it was exactly. Same for most things in science. We can come up with names for shit, we do it all the time, it is fucking trivial. It is really sad that you don't understand this.

[Anonymous No.3058574]

>>3058553

Wow, I'm not all too familiar with String Theory (super or otherwise) but that's interesting. I mean I was just going off the assumption that gravity has a boson as well as the other three and as such it should have some kind of potentiation effect on itself when it interacts with enough of itself over a vast enough area. Other universes though? Wouldn't higher dimensions explain something that influences us but cannot be detected? Again, I'm not very familiar with this field so I'm kind of just going off of the basic knowledge I may have gathered from Science Channel documentaries and basic definitions. Forgive me for bastardizing these concepts if I have.

[Anonymous No.3058589]

>>3058401
NOPE.jpg

You have no idea as to how light works.

[Anonymous No.3058590]

>>3058574
Higher dimensions are, imo, not a good copout. If gravitons can get here from them, why not photons? The obvious answer is "the matter in the higher dimensions doesn't emit photons," but that's the same as dark matter.

Gravitons do supposedly have infinite reaction chains or whatever you want to call it, and we even can't quite figure out how that would work, so your idea has "merit" but I don't think it has a lot of explanatory power without some serious mathematical fandangling.

[Anonymous No.3058595]

>>3058556
>something tiny we dont know might affect it, like black holes being at the center of galaxies most of the times etc

But we actually do know that it would affect it, and actually do take that kinda shit into account in relativity calculations. Your outta your league son, and are just talking out of your ass.

Educate yourself.
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay21/readings/Ryden_IntroCosmo.pdf

[Anonymous No.3058611]

>>3058590

Of course, I never intended it to be a serious undertaking of particle physics and its leading theories. I was just musing some concepts in my head. Thanks for clearing some of that up for me and bearing with me. I understand I probably don't have the best grasp on these very strange but fascinating principles.

[Anonymous No.3058618]

>>3058590
>>3058574
>string theory
>gravitons

Not science, not physics.

The standard model = makes predictions, provides explainations = testible = an excellent scientific theory

Gravitons = not in the standard model, or any testible model = not science = not physics

String theory = mathematics = not testible, no physical predictions

[Anonymous No.3058630]

>>3058618
Calm down, friend. Gravitons are a scientific concept and string theory attempts to explain the physical universe.

[Anonymous No.3058637]

>>3058630
so does the bible

[Anonymous No.3058644]

1+1=3.jpg

[Anonymous No.3058645]

>>3058637
The physical universe?

[Anonymous No.3058654]

Our maths are still insufficient/wrong despite having seemed mostly right for a long time.

Instead of admitting we are wrong we invented imaginary variables (dark matter) to account for our errors.

Dark Matter is god of the gaps for people who don't want to accept that we were wrong yet again.

[Anonymous No.3058660]

>>3058645
Do you actually know what science is? We try to make , in physics, testable predictions. If you don't make any predictions that are testable then you might as well have created the bible.

[Anonymous No.3058661]

>>3058654
Can you come up with a new theory of gravity which explains the problems in rotation speed and accounts for the universe seeming flat with the small amount of baryonic matter? This is the alternative, and until it can be formulated in a reasonable way there's no reason to think it's true.

[Anonymous No.3058664]

>>3058660
Gravitons are testable.

[Anonymous No.3058673]

>>3058664
Oh, goody.

How?

[Anonymous No.3058677]

>>3058661
That's not science, that's religion. We should simply say we don't know, not make up some concept that can't be either proved-nor-disproved.

[Anonymous No.3058683]

>>3058630
>>3058630

Nope. The gravition and string theory are hypothese's, but not a scientific hypothese's. They are unscientific hypothese's, or in laymens terms something to be ignored. They are basically science fiction.

They are in the realm of philosophy and mathematics, not in the realm of science. In order to be in the realm of science you need a connection (testible) to physical reality. Gravitions are string theory have none. Yes, they all attempt to explain shit, but none is actually verifyable.

When you attempt to discuss science, you should actually make the distinction between real science and science-fiction. You actually hurt yourself and everyone else, if you don't understand this distinction. You just end up just speading ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3058695]

>>3058673
We can know for a fact they don't exist if there are no gravitational waves. We can test for their existence theoretically with super massive detectors.
>>3058677
That's exciting, but stupid. We are fairly certain that a certain thing, namely dark matter, explains a phenomena particularly well. This is the framework every single scientific idea works in; dark matter is merely in its infancy. It might be the case that it turns out to not exist, and people do admit that. It's not dogmatically accepted, and people don't make up bullshit about it that is beyond the range of information.

You have a very naive view of how science works. Sometimes our information suggests certain vague classifications of phenomena but doesn't hint at its precise nature. Take, for instance, early experiments which suggested light might be a wave. It could also be explained a lot of ways, but the best explanation (even though that explanation wasn't perfect!) was that light behaves like a wave.

[Anonymous No.3058699]

>>3058677
Dark matter is actual science though. It is a name given to a quantitiave phenomia we actually do observe experimentally, there is no doubt or debate about this. I don't see what you are trying to argue?

Trolling?

[Anonymous No.3058703]

>>3058699
>>3058683
Woah, >nsfw.

Some of us have jobs, keep it out of /sci, and enjoy your ban.

[Anonymous No.3058707]

>>3058683
Can I get a source on those big fat cat tats?

[Anonymous No.3058708]

>>3058683
Nice syntax, you fucking moron. Gravitons and string theory are both testable concepts in principle. Trying to say they aren't science is ridiculous. You should instead focus on how far outside the range of our current tests they are, a much more fruitful criticism. Arguing whether they are or are not science is not going to lead to much.

[Anonymous No.3058716]

Let's say you have a box. You can see 3 apples in the box. You weigh the box, and the overall weight is MORE than three apples and the box's worth. You rule out equipment error by using a few different methods of measurement, but the result still doesn't add up. You conclude that there must be something in the box that you can't see with your eyes to make up the weight.
THAT IS WHAT DARK MATTER AMOUNTS TO, IN A VERY SIMPLIFIED WAY.

[Anonymous No.3058722]

>>3058708
What predictions does string theory make?

[Anonymous No.3058724]

>>3058426
>baseless theorizing
Bullshit. It's us trying to explain an anomaly in our understanding of how gravity affects galaxies. It's supported by observation of gravitational lensing in seemingly empty regions of space. Just because you autists on /sci/ don't think it exists doesn't mean that it isn't the most likely explanation for the observable issues we see when observing certain galaxies.

String theory, like other shit such as super-symmetry, have no direct evidence suggesting that they're true, but even they have a "base" in logical reasoning, mathematics, and pattern recognition, something an autistic cunt like you should understand well.

[Anonymous No.3058729]

>>3058716
So you say there's a magical dark apple in there, instead of saying you don't actually know what's in there at the moment. It may be that the apples you forgot to include the weight of the box.

[Anonymous No.3058739]

>>3058729
'A 'dark apple' with this much weight' and 'Something we don't know with this much weight' are the exact same thing. Stop getting hung up on the semantics of it, we've ruled out enough to name it, why does that twist so many people's nipples.

[Anonymous No.3058745]

>>3058722
Fundamental matter is made of strings.
>>3058729
It's pretty certain that we didn't make any errors in our calculations, but if you want to point out the possibility specifically that would be very helpful. We also aren't hypothesizing a "dark apple" per se; we haven't overstepped our information with our descriptions of dark matter.

Dark matter is really not as dogmatically accepted as you are making it out to be. It very well could be the wrong idea, but we don't have any reason to think it isn't.

[Anonymous No.3058747]

>>3058729
We know that it has mass because it has gravity. We know it doesn't have charge because it neither blocks nor emits light. There's a lot we don't know, but it's not just a fudge factor. We can see it, albeit indirectly.

[Anonymous No.3058750]

>>3058745
>Fundamental matter is made of strings.

that's not a fucking prediction, dick face, ledalone a fucking testable one.

[Anonymous No.3058754]

>>3058750
Not that guy, but you're right, it's the axiomatic assumption. String theory isn't science until we have predictions (which are testable at least in theory).

[Anonymous No.3058755]

>>3058750
I didn't actually realise you were on my side, probably was a bit aggressive there. you're joking about the whole 'matter is made of strings' bit being a prediction, right?

[Anonymous No.3058756]

>>3058750
We can test it by shooting very high energy shit at particles and seeing how they scatter.

[Anonymous No.3058762]

>>3058756
Only if string theory makes quantitative predictions that current QM either cannot predict or for which it predicts different numbers. Otherwise string theory doesn't contribute much.

[Anonymous No.3058766]

>>3058708
>both testable concepts in principle

Yes, of course. But they are not testible yet. Until they are testible, they are not considered science. The distinction is very important and needs to be made to laymen, else laymen get the wrong impression of science and scientist in general.

Things like string theory and gravitions are not taught as physics (or science) at large. The overwhelming majority of particle physicist never are required to learn or even study that shit.

Most physicsts working at CERN and Fermilab no very little about gravitions and string theory, as most of their actual work is in no way dependent on that shit.

String theory and gravitions are not science, and not taught as such. They are "some neat ideas", but nothing more. No one except a very very very small group wastes there time with that shit, cause it is not science. There are so many fucking "neat ideas" out there in physics, each with there own supporters. But these thousands of "neat ideas" are not taught as science or even considered science at large, until they are tested and proven to be a valid theory.

[Anonymous No.3058768]

>>3058755
I apologize, but I'm not. I think string theory is testable in principle, just not within any feasible time. I was sort of joking, but mostly because I'm not well-versed enough to know what kind of actual shit string theory would predict at very high energy levels.

[Anonymous No.3058774]

>>3058766
There's a difference between theoretically testable and feasibly testable.

[Anonymous No.3058781]

>>3058745
Silly-strings prove time travel exists because of the quantum cascade reactor.

[Anonymous No.3058784]

>>3058774
until it is tested it remains speculation

[Anonymous No.3058794]

I SAID CAN I GET A SOURCE ON THOSE BIG HUGE CAT TITS

[Anonymous No.3058796]

>>3058766
I don't understand why you are so angry about things which aren't quite testable yet. If you try to discredit every new concept while it's in its infancy (I admit string theory is not actually such a thing, given that it can be tweaked to fit any experiment at this point), you're going to avoid a lot of potential explanations for shit.

I'll concede that string theory is mostly bullshit, but I think gravitons are an idea that is worth investigating seriously. Testing their ability to explain new phenomena seems like a fruitful exercise, especially given that the specific mechanism of gravity is something that is (as far as I know) unknown. The argument of whether they are "science" is mostly based on definitions, but I think that it's clear that the concept is at least fundamentally different from the hypothesis "Gravity is caused by spirit energy" or some such bullshit. It's not a religion or a stupid dogma or anything, it's a serious idea worth investigating.

[Anonymous No.3058803]

>>3058796
that's not what he or I am saying
we're saying you don't incorporate something into scientific belief until it has made useful predictions and more importantly it has been tested.

[Anonymous No.3058825]

>>3058803
I don't know whether anyone said "Gravitons surely exist." I agree that it shouldn't be accepted as the One Holy Truth, but I think the guy posted animals with big ass titties had an irrationally hostile view toward ideas which are just being formulated.

[Anonymous No.3058826]

>>3058796
Gravity may simply be caused by contracting space near matter. It doesn't need a particle.

If there were gravitons, then why would gravity escape a black hole?

[Anonymous No.3058839]

making particles for everything is fucking retarded

[Anonymous No.3058846]

>>3058826
I don't think the idea of space "just contracting" is as free of baggage as it sounds. If we mean it literally, we have to actually explain what "space" really is and how mass makes it contract.

Maybe they are "gravitationally neutral," if you'll forgive me making up my own words. If gravitons are the only thing that mediate gravitation, and if they don't interact with each other, then no matter how much gravity you had, they would be able to escape.

[Anonymous No.3058865]

>>3058846
A singularity pulls the universe in on itself. Gravitons wouldn't escape because of the universe, not because of the gravity.

[Anonymous No.3058873]

>>3058865
Can you explain that in more natural language?

Also, I did a bit of looking around to see whether thay was a commonish question, and apparently it's solved by asserting that the gravitons which mediate the black hole's gravity are virtual particles, so they can do whatever the hell they want dealwithitreality.jpg
This sounds silly but remember: black holes have charge, so we need to already have a consistent concept of force-mediating particles escaping them.

[Anonymous No.3058887]

>>3058873
A charged black hole has not been proven to exist.

[Anonymous No.3058893]

>>3058887
They don't have to exist. We just have to be able to theoretically handle them if they do, and as far as I know we can.

[Anonymous No.3058911]

>>3058893
Unicorns can exist. A horse with a horn is not that big a stretch for biology. In theory, unicorns are entirely feasible.

Silly-strings are significantly less feasible.

[Anonymous No.3058914]

>>3058911
I was saying that we have the theoretical framework in place to handle force-carrying particles escaping black holes. It might turn out in the future that charged black holes are more ridiculous that unicorn-shaped black holes, but my basic point was that current theory is capable of handling the question "How do gravitons get out of black holes?"

Yes, I've conceded that there isn't much of a point arguing in favor of string theory.

[Anonymous No.3058917]

>>3058825
>>3058796
There are literally thousands of neat idea's like string theory and the gravition floating around, that doesn't make them science, it just makes them neat ideas.

Most particle physicist don't subscribe to the idea of the graviton, or String theory, considering them pointless endevors. One of the fundamentals of scientific inquiry is lex parsimoniae. The ideas of the gravition and string theory, do not fit into this type of thinking.

Gravity can be explained by changing metrics and shit, we know this very fuckin well. The next logical step would to be to try and conduct particle physics with these metrics, to explain gravity (that is what most are trying to do although it is very very very very very fucking difficult). The next logical step is not to "quantize" gravity, by invention of a force mediating particle, that is fucking ridicoulus, and not lex parsimoniae. The gravition has never been seriously considered as a possible particle.

String theory invents way too many dimensions. You can explain any physical phenomia, if you are just allowed to invent tons of extra degrees of freedom, it is fucking trivial. Again, this is far far far away from lex parsimoniae. I might as well just say, a magic man in the sky did everything...LMFAO.

[Anonymous No.3058918]

>>3058914
You are not going to separate silly-strings from gravitons.

They are in the same model.

[Anonymous No.3058921]

>>3058911

I love how so many people on this board hate string theory and yell NOT SCIENCE, when some of the smartest people in the history of existence are convinced enough to want to devote their entire lives to learning more about it. Honestly do you really think you know better than them. Jesus you sound like a 15 year old kid who thinks he knows it all.

[Anonymous No.3058922]

>>3058917
Gravity can be explained by changing metrics, but what speaks in favor of those metrics? Can they be tested yet?

[Anonymous No.3058924]

>>3058918
What? Electrons and gravitons are in the same model as well, but you can separate them. There are models other than string theory which use gravitons.

[Anonymous No.3058928]

>>3058924
>There are models other than string theory which use gravitons.
Such as?

[Anonymous No.3058931]

>>3058921
Arrogant, egotistical, pseudo-intellectuals autists who want to be smartlol make themselves feel so by disagreeing with some of the most brilliant minds of this generation because they're too stupid to understand ITT.
Hell, in this board.

[Anonymous No.3058932]

>>3058924
And electrons co-existing with gravitons is not a fact.

[Anonymous No.3058933]

>>3058921
Arrogant, egotistical, pseudo-intellectuals autists who want to be smartlol make themselves feel so by disagreeing with some of the most brilliant minds of this generation because they're too stupid to understand ITT.
Hell, in this board

[Anonymous No.3058937]

>>3058931
The smartest minds also masturbated.

WITH.

THEIR.

MINDS.

Playing with a creative puzzle is not the same as proving a theory.

[Anonymous No.3058938]

>>3058928
Loop quantum gravity has it, for one.
>>3058932
Yes.

[Anonymous No.3058946]

>>3058922
>Can they be tested yet?

Yes, it actually can, that is General relativity. The metrics are derived from mass configuations. This is all standard physics, REAL SCIENCE!! (unlike string theory or the graviton)

General relativity is very very strong it is predictive and explanitory power. It has been verified countless fucking times already as a valid scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.3058948]

>>3058937
>playing a creative puzzle.

Say that to Brian Greene or Michio Kaku's face you fucking twit.

[Anonymous No.3058952]

>>3058938
>Loop quantum gravity

Another kind of string theory. I'm kind of insulted.

[Anonymous No.3058957]

>>3058921
Cause it isn't science. By the definition of science, it is not considered science.....DURRRR. Do you think religion is science as well?

U trollin?

[Anonymous No.3058960]

>>3058946
I apologize, I didn't use my words good. What precedent is there to suggest that changing the metrics is a better solution that hypothesizing something else?

There is a bit of an error in logic in assuming that certain kinds of modifications need less "assumptions" or are more "simple," because it can lead to sticking to an incorrect theory indefinitely. Until the modifications to the original theory can make testable predictions of their own, they are of the same nature as modifications to string theory which account for shit they didn't know about previously. Tacking certain things onto a theory and giving them an evidence-free ride is fallacious in that it doesn't call for the same rigorous procedures among all proposals.

[Anonymous No.3058964]

>>3058952
It's a proof of concept, silly. String theory is not necessary for the graviton to exist, therefore they can be separated.

[Anonymous No.3058965]

>>3058948
>pop-scientists
>You look up to Pop-scientists

LMFAO

[Anonymous No.3058973]

>>3058948
I can, boldly and without fear, because Kaku is a media whore that belongs in the hell that people who explain wormholes with a piece of paper and a pencil go to, and Green was on "the big bang theory"(he's already IN hell.).

They are giants of fabrication, table-top gamers of astronomical proportion.

[Anonymous No.3058974]

I felt like this was a pretty good video explaining dark matter but you guys might disagree.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1430

[Anonymous No.3058979]

>>3058965
>implying popular scientists aren't smarter than 99% of the human population.
>implying popular scientific theories are always wrong.
>inb4 HURR DURR SCEANCE THOTT AERTH WUS FLAT

[Anonymous No.3058983]

>>3058957

Except these theories are far more than just guesses. String theory is a mathematically complete system that actually COULD be true, without relying on any sort of supernatural forces. It is self-consistent and is a strong candidate for a TOE, and yet you all dismiss it as some sort of wild fantasy.

[Anonymous No.3058990]

>>3058965

Both of those men are 30 times smarter than you can ever claim to be.

[Anonymous No.3058995]

>>3058964
The problem is, models where gravitons exist ARE ALL VARIATIONS OF STRING THEORY.

[Anonymous No.3059001]

>>3058990
It doesn't matter if they are smarter if they are wrong.

[Anonymous No.3059002]

>>3058995
Models where gravitons exist were all made by humans, but that doesn't imply that no alien can make a model with gravitons. If you want to show how something has to be a "variation" of string theory (what?) to include gravitons, I would love to see it. However, a merely historical linkage does not imply that it is impossible to separate the two.

[Anonymous No.3059007]

>>3058983
And religion could be true the same way.

[Anonymous No.3059012]

>>3059002

-1/10

WAAAY too obvious.

Go back to /v/ for remedial trolling.

[Anonymous No.3059016]

>>3059012
What?

[Anonymous No.3059023]

>>3059001

Honestly if you can't even understand what the fuck they're talking about then how can you say you know they are wrong. I'm not saying they're right but they certainly are looking in a good direction. The theories are not baseless and they potentially lead to powerful understanding of the universe around us.

Newton's Laws weren't "right" but they are powerful models that we use every day. I

[Anonymous No.3059024]

>>3059007

Name a religion which lacks any supernatural explanations.

[Anonymous No.3059042]

>>3059023

What does silly-strings prove? Where is the evidence?

No, until string theory can in some way be proven, just no. There were very intelligent people working on theories of space aether. Until someone has some verifiable evidence, no.

[Anonymous No.3059047]

>>3059024
Silly-strings have super-natural explanations.

An intelligent religion is still a religion.

[Anonymous No.3059054]

>>3058960
>What precedent is there to suggest that changing the metrics is a better solution that hypothesizing something else?

Well, for one you can derive GR from first principles. Changing the metrics is actually not something you just "throw in there". You actually derive "changing the metrics" from the Least-action principle and calculus of variations (the same shit that all physics is derived from).

General relativity (changing metrics) was found to be a great scientific theory explaining gravity, therefore we use it. We try not to introduce dramatic changes into our current model of the universe, until everything else in our current models has been exhausted. Do you not understand lex parsimony?

Futhermore, any other "theory" for gravity would have to reproduce General Relativty, as GR fucking works. So it would now be pointless to make a competing model that just duplicates the results of GR. They would basically be isomorphic.

>Until the modifications to the original theory can make testable predictions of their own

General relativity does make testable predictions. I don't understand what you are trying to say.

>Tacking certain things onto a theory

This is not done with General Relativty. Where are you getting such nonsense from? You can derive general relativity off the first principles of physics.

[Anonymous No.3059061]

>>3059054
I apologize, I don't know what specific "changes of metric" you're referring to. What problems do they handle that gravitons are used to patch up? Incompatibility with quantum mechanics?

Was the original theory wrong? How can you derive two different sets of equations from the same axioms?

[Anonymous No.3059062]

>>3059023
>>3059023
>Implying I don't understand string theory

[Anonymous No.3059070]

>>3059062
you're full of shit. you're telling me you understand this?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/9108/9108019v2.pdf

[Anonymous No.3059072]

>thread about dark matter
> >100 posts
>presumably most posts are idiots saying what amounts to "dark matter is a fudge term we introduced in our maths" and "dark matter is the new aether" or "there's no evidence for dark matter."
>ctrl-f bullet cluster
>no one mentioned one of the most compelling arguments for the existence of dark matter

ah /sci/, you are such a shitty board.

[Anonymous No.3059077]

>>3059042
>>3059047
Nothing. Yet.
Calling it a theory is a bit premature, as it's still in it's infancy. A good theory is based on reasoned thought, and makes testable predictions. The predictions aren't currently testable with string theory due to our lack of understanding of the theory itself and lack of technology. I know it's hard to understand, but you should really read up on it. Currently, it's the only theory that potentially unifies all the fundamental forces. You're fooling yourself if you think that they just said "I know! lets say everything's made of tiny 1 dimensional strings! that way we can predict whatever we want, and make anything we want to true! oh yea lets throw in extra dimensions for fun!"

[Anonymous No.3059079]

>>3059054
I believe the jist of his post was against string theory, not GR.

[Anonymous No.3059093]

>>3059072
i referred to it, without mentioning it directly.

people are busy discussing something similarly strange and difficult to prove, string theory.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3059097]

>>3059072
I mentioned it in my link else-thread with the Lawrence Krauss (sp) video.

[Anonymous No.3059108]

>>3059077
fine, aetherman. Go ahead and sail the oceans of spacetime in your wooden space-ships.


Seriously, they're as provable as God.

"We can't understand it." <-- bullshit lazynigger excuse.

"Our technology is not advanced enough"<-- bullshit excuse if there ever was one. EVERY experiment has to be made from scratch. If the theory cannot be proven with our current technology, that isn't because of the limits of our technology.

[Anonymous No.3059116]

>>3059108

We don't have the technology to observe strings because they're fucking tiny. Like on the planck scale. It's not an issue of creativity, we just don't have the capability of seeing things that small.

[Anonymous No.3059120]

>>3059108
But theory is what drives technology. If we just said anything that can't be tested with current technology is wrong we would be nowhere and talking about how the Sun god took away the light with his chariot again. If the math works out for something and it works in theory, what is the downside in working towards advancements that could test it?

[Anonymous No.3059124]

>>3059116

If it was real, then it would prove something. You don't need to see the strings for an experiment to tell you they're there.

[Anonymous No.3059125]

>>3059108
1. Yet. We don't fully understand it or the predictions it could potentially make. Yet.
2. Fullretard.jpg - observing things on the scale of strings requires much, MUCH more powerful particle accelerators than we currently have. Even the lhc is FAR too small. So I guess technology isn't the issue, it's scale.

[Anonymous No.3059128]

Not knowing =/= wrong.
Not knowing =/= right.
Not knowing = not knowing.
What is so hard to understand about this?

[Anonymous No.3059129]

>>3059120
Strings, if not their presence, then their effects, should be detectable with our current tech.

No, this is wall-of-dicks-climbing faggotry.

[Anonymous No.3059130]

>>3059124

The thing is that if they are real, then they pretty much prove everything. Strings aren't so much a discovery as a model. Scientists look at everything they observe in the universe and try to come up with a pattern. By observing the weak force they saw that it behaves mathematically according to an equation which also accurately describes the vibration of strings.

They extrapolated this out and saw that using strings as a model consistently described many other phenomena of nature so they ran with it. This is where string theory is at today.

[Anonymous No.3059133]

>>3059061
>gravitons are used to patch up

There is no "one" idea of the gravition. There is no "gravition theory", it is just a collection of loose ideas used by some to attempt and incorporate gravity into quantum field theory (by making a quanta of gravity).

The idea that "gravity" needs to be incorperated into QFT is a huge leap. It is easier (and probably more fruitful) to just take QFT and put it into a fucked up metric (as we have tons of experimental evidence suggesting this technique). This is essentially how we introduce gravity into all other branches of physics, why not QFT?

However, The mathematics with doing this, are very difficult, and basically the only thing hampering this idea so far. We suck at math, we suck at dealing with infinities. We has a similar problem when we first invented QFT, but eventually over came it. The problem now is more difficult, but eventually can be overcome.

>Was the original theory wrong?

Newtonian Gravity. It wasn't wrong, as it works. It turned out to only be an appoximation of GR, hence it only worked in certain cases.

>How can you derive two different sets of equations from the same axioms?

How can you derive different branches of mathematics form the ZFC axioms? A great amount of math (more then the average person encounters) are based off a few axioms (ZFC-axioms). Yet, they can be used to reproduce the foundations of most branches of mathematics. Physics is similar.
Using only a few fundamental equations and procedures, you can produce Classical Mechanics, Special and General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Field theory, etc.

[Anonymous No.3059142]

>>3059070
Yep, that shit looks pretty basic bro. Pretty old though.

Tell me what part is difficult for you and I can explain, if you like.

[Anonymous No.3059144]

>>3059125
If string theory had anything to do with reality.

Something, some larger scale effect, would show that they exist. If not in a lab, then in cosmological phenomena.

[Anonymous No.3059150]

>>3059129
I was commenting on this statement:
"If the theory cannot be proven with our current technology, that isn't because of the limits of our technology."
Whether or not the technology exists to test an idea has no bearing on whether the idea is right or wrong. And if when the technology arises to test a theory and it is proven wrong, at least it spurred on technological advances. Not bothering with anything that can't be proven wrong or right at the current moment just leads to stagnation.

[Anonymous No.3059151]

>>3059133

[Anonymous No.3059166]

>>3059144
wat?
no, really, wat?
I got about a paragraph and a bit into an essay explaining, but to simplify, everything. String theory, if we fully understood it, would be able to predict and explain everything that can ever happen, or ever will. The issue with understanding it is that it's a bit like trying to learn how an airplane works by studying it's individual atoms.

[Anonymous No.3059187]

>>3059124
asking what string theory proves is like asking what atomic theory proves. Except instead of proving that the things we see are made of atoms, it would prove that everything was made of strings.

[Anonymous No.3059193]

>>3059166
Actually, it's more like trying to understand how an airplane works using fuzzy logic.

[Anonymous No.3059206]

>>3059187
>implying there are no consequences of atomic theory

[Anonymous No.3059211]

>>3059187
We can explode atoms.

We cannot ANYTHING AT ALL strings.

[Anonymous No.3059218]

>>3059211
>implying complete and utter unification of the four fundamental forces is nothing

[Anonymous No.3059220]

>>3059193
kay so you're a troll. you have to be. you keep refusing to listen or reply to anything said except with "Theory doesn't yet make predictions, so it's stupid and wrong." also with trollposts like this one.

[Anonymous No.3059233]

>>3059218
It IS nothing if it is wrong, or is impossible to prove no matter how technologically advanced you are.

[Anonymous No.3059241]

>>3059220
You're the one trying to get me to believe something science still gives a great big NOPE to.

[Anonymous No.3059245]

Anyone in this thread that thinks String Theory shouldn't be considered science should try proving that quarks and electrons are in fact point particles.

Whats harder to believe? That something is made of silly strings or that they literally take up NO SPACE.

[Anonymous No.3059251]

>>3059245
String theory isn't considered science though. There is no argument. Look up the definition of science dipshit.

[Anonymous No.3059266]

>>3059251
wikipedia calls it a theory. Thats good enough for me.

[Anonymous No.3059270]

>>3059245
Whats harder to believe? We live in 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension, or we live in a 10-26 dimensional cluster fuck of madness?

Physicist don't have a problem accepting the point particle idea, only underage fags do.

[Anonymous No.3059277]

>>3059266
"String Theory" is a proper noun.

[Anonymous No.3059278]

>>3059270
>implying physicists have a problem accepting the ten spatial dimensions idea, and its only underage fags who don't.

[Anonymous No.3059285]

>>3059277
>String theory is a developing theory in particle physics that attempts to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity.

The first sentence in the article.

[Anonymous No.3059287]

>>3059266
>>3059266

[Anonymous No.3059291]

>>3059287
you got a problem with wikipedia?

[Anonymous No.3059293]

>>3059270
>Physicist don't have a problem accepting the point particle idea, only underage fags do.
>Physicist don't have a problem accepting the extra dimensions idea, only underage fags do.

[Anonymous No.3059296]

>>3059285

[Anonymous No.3059304]

>>3059291
>thinks wikipedia is a valid scientific reference

[Anonymous No.3059306]

>>3059296
I'm just saying that wikipedia actually calls it a theory, I wasn't just assuming it was one because of the name.

[Anonymous No.3059317]

>>3059304
>he thinks it isn't.

My chem professor at UCLA tells us to look stuff up on wikipedia all the fucking time. He literally told our whole lecture yesterday to look at the page on x-ray crystallography if we wanted to see how it worked in detail.

[Anonymous No.3059324]

>>3059241
not trying to get you to believe anything, just arguing with you about the validity of a theory.
"science gives a NOPE to" isn't a compelling argument. listing scientists who disagree with string theory and their qualms would be a compelling argument. all you're doing is reinforcing your own opinion without looking at what's out there. funny, considering i believe it was you who mentioned mental masturbation earlier.

[Anonymous No.3059326]

>>3059285
I have a fairly good knowledge of what String Theory is. I don't care what Wikipedia claims it is. I use the Dawkins type definition of a scientific theory. String Theory does not fit my definition of a theory.

[Anonymous No.3059365]

>>3059326
String theory does not fit anyone's definition of a scientific theory. "String theory" is a proper name. Alot of unproven or false bullshit has the word "theory" in its proper name. This confuses the general public, and apparenty wikipedia.

Additionally, sometimes the word theory is not being used in a scientific context, it is being used in a mathematical context. String theory is not a scientific theory, it is a mathematics theory (hypothetical theory) or scientific hypothesis.

Wikipedia also say that the "aether" is a theory....LMFAO

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories

[Anonymous No.3059378]

>>3059365
>mfw it actually doesn't.

Quote me where on that page it states that the "Aether theories" actually theories.

[Anonymous No.3059387]

>>3059324
When it is no-longer a hypothesis, talk to me.

[Anonymous No.3059419]

It's matter with negative and imaginary mass.
The US knows about this since decades already and invented time travel, wormholes and intergalactic spaceships.

[Anonymous No.3059455]

>>3058661
"Can you solve the theory of everything without any issues where you have to invent shit? If not then dark matter must be true!"

Are you fucking serious?

Dark Matter is god of the gaps, you just proved it by your post, lmao.

"Our mathematical models cannot account for the behavior of the universe based on OBSERVATION, therefore it must be the observable universe that is wrong, and not our mathematical models!"

Science.

[Anonymous No.3059515]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-geometric-theory-of-everything

[Anonymous No.3059530]

>>3059515
Are you fucking serious? lmao?

[Anonymous No.3059553]

I recommend reading Quintessence by Lawrence Krauss, if you've got the time and interest.

[Anonymous No.3059577]

>>3059455
>Our mathematical models cannot account for the behavior of the universe based on OBSERVATION, therefore it must be the observable universe that is wrong, and not our mathematical models!"

no, thats not whats happening. if someone finds a way to fix out models than it will imediately be excepted, but no one can do it. and dark mater isnt necesarily matter, its used as a way to discribe all the ways in witch thes problem can be fixed, this includes modifying GR(and a lot of people are trying to do that). lr2science

[Anonymous No.3059596]

>>3059530
whats wrong with that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Gk_Ddhr0M