Dark Matter May Not Exist

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but dark matter may not exist at all. :eek:

“Seriously? There’s a mysterious, invisible substance out there, with a mass six or more times greater than that of the visible stars and galaxies, only we have no way of detecting it, but really, it’s there? OK then.” Or something like that, albeit in more formal scientific language.
 
The use of the word "Dark" is just physicists saying in a mysterious manner "We do not know". I think the experiment aboard the ISS might hold the key to figuring out what this weird stuff may be finally.
 
I remember reading about this back in the 90s. Nice to see it is still alive and kicking. Always made more sense than saying the universe was full of a massive amount of invisible crap that we really can't detect. Unfortunately too many scientists have come to view certain equations as almost biblical and would never think about changing them. So we end up with "dark matter" and "dark energy".
 
The creators of the dark matter theory should of just put it in a religious text instead of a scientific text then it would be true for ever despite what facts and formulas disprove it.
 
The creators of the dark matter theory should of just put it in a religious text instead of a scientific text then it would be true for ever despite what facts and formulas disprove it.

I see what you did there :cool:
 
Dark matter was the explanation for why there were gravitational anomalies that indicates something of mass should be there even though we can't see it.

We can't see black holes for example, but we sure as heck know they exist, because everything around it that DOES reflect light can be seen getting sucked into it.
 
The idea was that some gravitational force that wasn't seen was holding parts of the universe together. It would require something like 80% of the universe is made up of something we can't see, but gives off gravity. Hence they made up dark matter.

But considering dark matter makes up a good chunk of the universe, you'd think we'd notice some in our own solar system?
 
Considering we have only been scientifically observing the universe for a few centuries and we have only had serious technology to do so for less than a century I don't think we are doing too bad ... especially since we can only physically access 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of the universe :D

Theories change over time ... that is the nice thing about science, it does generally adjust its theories to match the facts (as new facts are uncovered) ... it doesn't try to discount the facts or ignore them ;)
 
It was used as a cosmic fudge factor anyway and physicists admitted it.

No it wasn't and no we haven't.

The creators of the dark matter theory should of just put it in a religious text instead of a scientific text then it would be true for ever despite what facts and formulas disprove it.

Facts and formulas such as? Oh, wait, there aren't any.

MOND has been a "competitor" to the lambda CDM cosmology that is currently accepted among cosmologists for decades, yet it still fails to describe the structure and evolution of the Universe to the degree of accuracy of dark matter. The theory of dark matter still has some issues (predictions of concentration and sub-structure formation some of the chief among them), but there is no scientific theory that is 100% "right" and never will be.

Dark matter is still the best explanation for what we observe in our Universe. If you'd care to argue that point, I'd invite you to take some introductory astronomy and physics courses and get back to me once you have a basic understanding of the subject.
 
The idea was that some gravitational force that wasn't seen was holding parts of the universe together. It would require something like 80% of the universe is made up of something we can't see, but gives off gravity. Hence they made up dark matter.

But considering dark matter makes up a good chunk of the universe, you'd think we'd notice some in our own solar system?

Hard to explain lensing without magical dark matter.
 
I can understand the theory. This is a method to explain effects without a measurable or observable cause. But the PROBLEM is when you swerve into this you are not talking about SCIENCE you are talking about metaphysics. Scientist are very quick to dismiss anything of a metaphysical nature because you cannot measure it, observe it, etc,etc. So any discussion of God as a prime mover is dismissed.
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.
 
I can understand the theory. This is a method to explain effects without a measurable or observable cause. But the PROBLEM is when you swerve into this you are not talking about SCIENCE you are talking about metaphysics. Scientist are very quick to dismiss anything of a metaphysical nature because you cannot measure it, observe it, etc,etc. So any discussion of God as a prime mover is dismissed.
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.

Er, no. Those are hypotheses and theories which are needed to lay groundwork for further testing. We've known since they day it was first talked about that dark matter may not exist.
 
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.
That is nonsense! Dark matter is absolutely measurable if you work on the premise that gravity is a universal constant where something of "whatever" mass in our solar system behaves the same as something of the same mass in a distant one. It passes the test of science because its an explanation for observable collected data that so far at least hasn't been contradicted by any other observable facts.

The amount of science and observable evidence that goes behind the formulation of the "big bang" model is overwhelming, and can hardly be equated to some half-ass mythology that has factual contradictions to itself and can quickly and easily be proven false with simple scientific tests (you can very easily prove for example that prayer has no statistically significant effect on the outcome of an event, invalidating one of the primary practices of any religion).

But yes, these theories are formed on certain assumptions, and the big bang one just like the dark matter theory are based very strongly on the idea that the laws of physics apply the same everywhere in the universe. Yes, its an assumption, but it is a reasonable and logical one.
 
Theories change over time ... that is the nice thing about science, it does generally adjust its theories to match the facts (as new facts are uncovered) ... it doesn't try to discount the facts or ignore them ;)

In practice, it is not always the case, especially where grant money, tenure, and peer opinion is involved. Pure science, following the scientific method with complete objectivity is rare because true objectivity requires removing the subjective part - in particular, the human observer - from the equation, thus it is technically not feasible. Usually theories become popular or favored and alternate theories are met with skepticism or dismissed offhand, not for empirical reasons but because people are used to thinking a certain way and are uncomfortable with change. Replacing old theories with new ones is done grudgingly at best. It does serve to offer a bit of stability, but at the same time it can lead to wasted attempts at trying to "bandaid" a theory that is starting to fall apart under the weight of new evidence to the contrary. The scientific process is not immune to human failings. You cannot remove the observer, however, you can be aware of the tendencies of the observer to be biased and work to objectify the process further at the individual level. The difficult part is removing social, financial, and political pressures from the process.

I look at the entire discussion over dark matter, dark energy, the supposed origin of the universe, etc, as an example of intellectual overreaching. As you correctly state, the amount of the universe observed is infinitesimally small, and the time of observation is equally small. The universe in its current configuration is completely unknown beyond this solar system, and even the solar system has been barely explored by a few robotic probes. Since light takes time to travel you can only tell where distant things were, never where they are, and since there's no other available point of view of the universe there's no way to compare data from point A and point B to triangulate a reliable extrapolation of movement over time. A quasar 15 billion light years out is a quasar that was there 15 billion years ago. Where it is now, and its current state is unknown and cannot be known. Extrapolations regarding the functioning of large areas of space and matter can never be accurate for this reason. It would seem to me entirely more logical to account for the apparent incorrect amount of mass to gravity ratio in the universe as a result of mathematical error due to incomplete data rather than some need for the universe to have some mysterious, unobservable substance that fills in the gap in the data. One can speculate about forces that govern galaxies, but until such a time as faster than light travel is possible and routine, assuming that it is at all, and that data can be gathered directly and at a significant distance from the earth, it will remain guesswork at best. The MOND theory touches on the math, which I think is a healthy approach than grasping for shadows, even if the neutrino explanation is flawed at best. More research along these lines would be refreshing.
 
People don't seem to appreciate that only generally effective MOND models also require some sort of largely undetectable particle. You are literally trading one kind of dark matter for another kind of dark matter plus modifications to a fundamental interaction.
 
Dark matter is the under-girding of reality. You can't see it like you can't see the superstructure of a building because it's covered up by the fascia, but it's there.
 
First I'm told "x" can be equal to any value and now this? Shred all the science books!!!!
 
Screw it, I am going to pop in my blu-ray of 2001:A Space Odyssey.
 
Oh god THIS again

Let me point out that Mund is a completely valid theory

But let me point out that dark matter is also a completely valid theory, with lots, and lots of science behind this one

The problem with Mund theory is that, there is no observational proof this is taking place. This is a theory, its a very, very valid theory, but its still a theory. The reason people don't take it as seriously is because it involves us breaking our current beliefs about the force of gravity

Gravity is not a variable force (That we know of), gravity is a -CONSTANT- force, it has a very specific measurable calculation on matter, Mund Theory asks us to change our beliefs of gravity based on guesses, not proof on the force of gravity. It is a very, very valid theory, but it does not hold water because other then in its very well done hypothesis it has no further data backing it up.

Dark matter theory, and it too is a theory, is because we believe on the force of gravity as a constant force in this universe, how it works, behaves, we very much have measured its effect greatly and have a calculative and very precise way to measure it. Because of its construction, we can't see it.

The thing is, based on all our current understandings of gravity, we -CAN- observe it! We can see it affecting distant galaxies, we have seen "Dark matter" clusters cause gravitational lensing of distant objects in space which is -FAR- different then black hole gravitational lensing. Gravitational black hole lensing you have a large, large "hole" in the distant viewed object, and the image behind that object distorts.

Dark Matter lensing causes distortion as well, but we can see through the -CENTER- of the distortion, there is no gaping hole in the middle of the distortion like a black hole, it causes a walleye/fisheye effect instead

We can also measure dark matter energy at work on our own understandings and very well researched other forces, MUND only takes into account gravity, dark energy takes into account pressure curves causing distortions in time and space which pushes galaxies even faster, the distortion of time and space we have personally observed on earth by putting atomic clocks on rockets in space, ripping them up to 400,000 MPH and able to see a detectible and repeatable distortion that the atomic clock -SLOWS- at high velocity

Again, I love the mund theory, the problem is there is very little observational evidence to support it. There is no great conspiracy about it, its just that as it is right now, we believe gravity to be a -CONSTANT- force, not a variable one, and all the other evidence like I listed above (Very small part if I'm remember correctly, I think I'm only listing the big ones) and that's why people back dark matter and not MUND theory

Anyways, I'm not talking down to this scientist, its just I believe there is no great conspiracy at work here, we have lots, and lots, and lots of observational evidence to back up dark matter and dark energy based on what we know for certain -RIGHT NOW- about forces in the universe.

If gravity indeed can be changed, then Mund will very certainly be looked at again, but until we can prove gravity changes, we can't waste tons of time dealing with it.

And there is no conspiracy, there's thousands of physicists working on debunking the current beliefs on gravity, but none have done it yet.

Gravity is to all our measurements a perfectly constant force, until evidence comes along to prove its not a constant, we will continue to believe in dark matter/dark energy theory more then MUND, simply because we have far, far, far more evidence to support the first one then the second.
 
Oh god THIS again

Let me point out that Mund is a completely valid theory

The problem with Mund theory is that, there is no observational proof this is taking place. This is a theory, its a very, very valid theory, but its still a theory. The reason people don't take it as seriously is because it involves us breaking our current beliefs about the force of gravity

MUND is not a theory, it is a hypothesis... even your statement says as much.

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven."
 
The creators of the dark matter theory should of just put it in a religious text instead of a scientific text then it would be true for ever despite what facts and formulas disprove it.

STOP using the word theory!!! It's merely hypothesized to account for the missing mass.
 
Dark matter was the explanation for why there were gravitational anomalies that indicates something of mass should be there even though we can't see it.

We can't see black holes for example, but we sure as heck know they exist, because everything around it that DOES reflect light can be seen getting sucked into it.

For example, galaxies like our own should fly themselves apart, but somehow there's enough mass to keep it together and they just don't know where it's coming from. Similarly, something causes galaxies to form along the super-large filaments in the universe. They don't know what matter exactly is there giving those strings their mass, but it happens nonetheless. *SOMETHING* is keeping this stuff held together, somehow. I hope I'm alive when they figure it out, it's among the more intriguing mysteries I'd like to see solved someday.
 
While MOND does solve the problem of galaxy rotation, it breaks down when applied to galactic clusters (Bullet, specifically). Then, of course, there's gravitational lensing. Dark matter happens to nail all three.
 
MUND is not a theory, it is a hypothesis... even your statement says as much.

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."

"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven."

Sorry, I've had a, frankly, fucking awful day, grandmother is dying and I'm mixing up words

Thanks for the correction

But yeah its true, Mund is a hypothesis, Dark Mattery is a theory
 
STOP using the word theory!!! It's merely hypothesized to account for the missing mass.

Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory
Dark Matter Theory

Something that is hypothesized to account for something is in fact a theory.

Definition of theory ' a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation'
Most of not all references of dark matter refer to it as a theory as it is a theory....

So I think I'll continue to reference it as a theory
 
But considering dark matter makes up a good chunk of the universe, you'd think we'd notice some in our own solar system?
For things we can't readily observe through senses or technology, the only way to attempt to support a theory is mathematically. Copernicus used geometry to prove that the Earth revolved around the Sun but back then, the argument was that all one had to do was look up at the sky and it was enough proof to show that the Earth was still while everything else moved.
 
For example, galaxies like our own should fly themselves apart, but somehow there's enough mass to keep it together and they just don't know where it's coming from. Similarly, something causes galaxies to form along the super-large filaments in the universe. They don't know what matter exactly is there giving those strings their mass, but it happens nonetheless. *SOMETHING* is keeping this stuff held together, somehow. I hope I'm alive when they figure it out, it's among the more intriguing mysteries I'd like to see solved someday.

Speaking of what's holding the universe together, watch Gurren Lagann, the ending is epic :D

Considering the level of understanding that we're now trying to accomplish and the phrase of science being indistinguishable from magic. Are we entering the realm of the gods?
 
I can understand the theory. This is a method to explain effects without a measurable or observable cause. But the PROBLEM is when you swerve into this you are not talking about SCIENCE you are talking about metaphysics. Scientist are very quick to dismiss anything of a metaphysical nature because you cannot measure it, observe it, etc,etc. So any discussion of God as a prime mover is dismissed.
But then you have things like dark matter, big bang, silly string theory, and the rest that does not pass this same test. No, that is science, not because they can prove it; because they say so.

String theory until today, is still not accepted the same way the Standard Model is. Its still a work in progress. Every theory have to be developed and eventually tested before they are accepted, so its not wrong to work on something that hasn't been confirmed yet. If its already confirmed, what's there left to work on? Nothing, and theoretical physicist will then move on to the next part that's unconfirmed or unknown.

String theory is a mathematical model just like any other modern science theory. Mathematics is used as a tool of pattern to understand nature. In fact, string theory wasn't widely accepted until they got rid of some mathematical inconsistency which proves that the theory has a logical consistency to it. But again, it should be emphasized that string theory is not accepted yet, not until we can find some observable or experimental confirmation for it. Same goes for Higgs idea, that's why we are now looking for the Higgs boson particle. Until we find it, its not accepted yet. But doesn't mean physicist can't work on it.

Therefore, if you want to proposed the existence of god to explain certain things the standard model could not explain, you are free to work on it. No one is stopping you. Just like string theory, you'll need to find evidence before your proposed solution can be accepted. But you are free to look for god if you wants to.

Something that is hypothesized to account for something is in fact a theory.

Definition of theory ' a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation'
Most of not all references of dark matter refer to it as a theory as it is a theory....

So I think I'll continue to reference it as a theory
Actually dark matter is simply a placeholder term. It is merely a reference to what seems like additional gravity that its source isn't apparent to us yet. That's all it is. We don't even know if its matter.

There are many proposed hypothesis to solve this issue, some suggest that our calculations might be wrong, while others suggest that they could be from particles we have yet to discover, or from parallel universes.

But the term dark matter itself is just a neutral placeholder term. It's not a theory.
 
I love how the Big Bang Theory has turned everyone into fucking Steven Hawking.
 
:rolleyes: There are such things as Universities.

Yep; however, apparently everyone is now a quadruple major in computer engineering, quantum science, constitutional law, and video game designer.

Relax though, it was a joke :eek:
 
Back
Top