I post the detection of a alleged Dark matter particle, because it’s so vague, 1 data point per a test. Something is there but I don’t think it’s dark matter in the way it’s explained now.
Might it just be possible that because we built everything around this one theory that we can’t get physical proof that we are missing multiple different reasons and even fields.
I feel a lot of science has bogged it’s self down with theory and maybes for decades and decades now with no proof. And with the paper printer of Universities, even old or disprove theories keep getting posted.
I am not denying the existence of some kind of matter but everything is so varied I don’t believe just dark matter exists. And Science just keeps bogging it’s self down in theories and running around in circles
Wanna see a opinion or someone disproving me.
I need to go to bed so I won’t be answering if people have some questions in couple of hours.
The galaxies in the universe don’t match the speeds we get from the proven set of physics.
So either something is physically there contributing mass, or the proven set of physics behaves differently at those scales.
Don’t worry, people are looking into alternative equations that match what we see without dark matter, but the search for those equations have been just as elusive as dark matter.
So for decades the sky has looked wrong and we simply haven’t been able to find or prove the answer why. That’s why it feels like everyone’s grasping for straws.
More like it needs to exist for THE RESULTS OF YOUR EXPERIMENT to make sense. Not the universe.
Dark matter is what you call whatever is left over when your instruments are telling you there is more something there, but it’s impossible to measure any of the something using the methods we have now.
Nobody is saying to you “dark matter must exist for the universe as I understand it to exist”
They are saying to you “if the universe exists as we understand it, there is something more here that we do not understand”
There is something more here that we have not directly detected.
That’s a big difference. Dark matter can literally be celestial dust, it doesn’t need to be some exotic form of matter.
Dark matter is not a theory. Stop treating it like one.
Wanna see a opinion or someone disproving me.
How about just sitting down and recognizing when you have no idea what you’re talking about instead of trying to backseat a field whose understanding you have is “I watched some YouTube videos lol”.
You sound like a shitty regurgitation of grifter Sabine Hossenfelder.
Understandable reaction, but I think it’s good to remember that most people are going to have fuzzy understandings of these things and will naturally ask somewhat naïve questions like this. Personally I think it’s better to find ways not to be too hard (or hostile) when responding with better information, else they get the swift idea ‘well, if they’re going to treat me like an arse then me mind’s made up,’ and all that jazz. And nothing changes.
Just my tuppence of course.
My original comment / response appears at the top of the thread, so feel free to critique, TBF.
Dark matter might not be the theory, but it’s the explanation without evidence for why the theory fails.
Dark Matter is just a placeholder AFAIK until something more proven comes along. It explains why galaxies hold together, but it’s just a stand-in for the time being.
I feel a lot of science has bogged it’s self down with theory and maybes for decades and decades
I mean, scientifically there’s a huge difference between the two. For example, the theory of gravity is so well-tested and supported that it’s about as close to proven as can be. A “maybe” isn’t even a hypothesis yet, but it’s perhaps an intermediate step. Maybes are good, because they represent relevant scientists coming up with ideas to help explain reality, which can then fade away or solidify as things unwind. Without maybes you don’t get well-supported theories… which is like science not able to get anywhere.
Came here to say this. It’s called “dark” because we know so little about it. Everything we know about it is based on what has to be there to make the equations we’ve “proven” balance. As we know more about it, we’ll give a new name to reflect what we’ve learned about it.
I think it’s “dark” because it doesn’t interact with photons (except gravitationally, of course)
Dark matter has not been observed directly so can not be said to conclusively exist but given our current understanding it is by far the best model for describing how the universe works. There are other theories but they do not describe reality as we observe it.
Dark matter does describe reality as we observe it we just haven’t observed dark matter itself.
Observed galaxy rotation doesn’t fit the centripetal force equation (classical Newtonian mechanics). You are 100% free to make any new equation that fits observations, as well as the rest of useful physics equations. Dark matter is simply the best explanation so far, but not a barrier in any way to better ideas.
That is exactly what the “dark” in “dark matter” and “dark energy” means: that our theories require it to exist to explain our observations, but we have no way to detect it, ergo it is “dark”.
It’s like the infamous cosmological constant that Einstein initially added to the theory of relativity. Just like the “dark” things it had no physical analogue, and was there so that his equations held for a universe of constant size. When Hubble demonstrated that (contrary to the belief at the time) the universe was expanding the cosmological constant was no longer needed.
It is entirely possible that a new theory will explain what the dark stuff is and we will be able to remove those terms from the equations that need them in order to explain our observations. It is possible that we will find some kind of actual matter that interacts with the gravitational force but not the strong, weak, or electromagnetic forces, which I think is what would be needed for a “dark matter particle”.
In my personal opinion, the best explanation I’ve heard is that the error terms are best explained by the expansion of space itself. Specifically, we have some very recent evidence that the expansion of space isn’t uniform, and that might explain a significant amount of the dark energy. PBS Space Time does a good job with relevant videos and keeping up with the science.
No physicist will tell you that we know what “dark matter” or “dark energy” is, because we don’t. I think most would agree with you that ultimately we will find multiple explanations that add up to “dark matter + dark energy”.
I think the one thing that I disagree with you on is that science is “bogged down” with theories and maybes. The theories and maybes are where the most exciting research is happening!
Science isn’t the body of knowledge that results from experimentation; it’s the cycle of theory and experimentation that generates new knowledge. We don’t remember the hundreds and hundreds of false theories that had to be argued about and discarded to get to relativity or quantum theory. Today we only read the papers that were proven right in hindsight. If you look at “dark matter/energy” science of today we’re in that churn, so it looks different. In time, all these disproved theories will be forgotten, too.
“Dark matter” and “dark energy” are the “errors in the prediction of Mercury’s orbit” (relativity) or “errors in the predictions of black-body radiation” (quantum) of our time.
Dark matter is not a theory, it is an observation.
Our current mathematical models are pretty damn close to how stuff works in reality. But like you said, for it to work out, you need to fudge the numbers a little. That’s dark energy.
Dark matter is, as far as we can tell, a real thing, just really hard to detect. It’s not a placeholder in the same way dark energy is. Something out there is exerting actual gravity.
Millions of man-hours have been spent on this. No one is going to prove or disprove it for you in some Lemmy comments. I would seek out talks from actual astrophysicists, not YouTube junk pop science.
“Dark matter” is both the imputed matter our models tell us has to be there to match our stellar observations, and the locally-testable explanation that all this imputed matter is some freakish particle we have literally never encountered before.
The former is about as close to a scientific fact as anything gets in astronomy, while the latter is more of a “if flies hatch from eggs where are the shells” kind of thing. It’ll be really significant if a “quasi local meta-particle” or whatever is found, so both excitement and skepticism are absolutely appropriate here.
I just wish pop science was a little clearer about the distinction between “this is what we see” and “this is why we think it’s like that.”
Science doesn’t bog itself down that’s so ridiculous.
Best way to put it, it’s math. If you did all the math in the universe you’ll end up with some questions. This is how we got black holes, dark matter, gravity.
I don’t understand your perception of run around in circles or bog down. You want science that states 2+2 is 4. But the idea of fully understanding something is infinite. If you mix two cups of water and two cups of alcohol, you’ll get less than 4 cups so 2+2 does not equal 4 here.
It’s just like how infinity isn’t at the end of counting all the numbers. It’s between every number. Things are absolutely impossible to fully define.
Science allows us the tools to break dogma when new theories better fit the evidence, but there is still a human tendency to not rock the boat.
The story of Millikans flawed oil drop experiment and how long it took us to slowly creep towards the real mass of an electron because no-one wanted to upstage the man is a perfect example it.
There are some particles that don’t interact via the electromagnetic force. There are some particles that don’t interact via the strong force. And there are some particles that don’t interact via the weak force. All the particles we know, we’ve detected because they interact via at least one of those forces—but there’s no rule that says a particle must interact with any of them.
Why should we assume that every particle in existence must be conveniently detectable? It’s like a blind person assuming nothing can exist unless it makes a noise.
Well if the particle doesn’t interact with anything does it matter if it exists or not?
Dark matter particles would still interact with gravity, but not the other forces. Gravity by itself is too weak to detect individual particles, but the effects of large numbers of them could still be seen.
Emergent properties.
It could be there is another force or state or something we don’t yet know about (or can measure directly), which itself doesn’t interact, but its emergent properties do.
The subatomic levels of whatever it is may not cause anything on its own, but as a system it may have completely different properties and interactions.
"If particle doesn’t interact with anything, does it exist? " is an interesting analog to “if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?”
Why should we assume that every particle in existence must be conveniently detectable?
Why should we assume that particles exist when nobody can detect them?
Because the motion of the things we can see leads us to suspect that something else is there, even if we can’t see it directly.
To use the blindness analogy, it’s like if you’re talking to someone and their voice suddenly becomes muffled, you might suspect that some kind of “silent matter” is affecting the sound.
Checkout Angela Collier’s video on the topic. Dark Matter is not a theory!
It’s worse than a theory. It’s an excuse for a theory.
I look at it as a placeholder theory. There’s something there that is either dark matter, or has the properties of what we believe dark matter to be. Either way- eventually, it’ll be discovered.
It is a placeholder name, not a placeholder theory. There’s something there, there are a bunch of theories trying to explain what, in the meantime we call it dark matter.
It is discovered. This is the same way gravity and black holes were discovered.
Someone did math and said, wait what the fuck? Something is missing. We still don’t understand black holes or gravity but since the day we understood something was missing, it was discovered. Our understanding can change but that space in the math and understanding is clear. There is no placeholder
Either way- eventually, it’ll be discovered.
Faith is not science.
we’re running out of theories of where dark matter could be
we better find it soon
Dark matter isn’t proven or disproven. Dark matter is an unknown force or substance that is required to exist, based on mathematical models of the universe
Dark matter is an unknown force or substance that is required to exist based on mathematical models of the universe
Matter does not exist simply because a model requires it.
The mathematical models are so far holding true based on observation.
