If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Space.com)   Scientists may have new way to look for dark matter, unicorns   (space.com) divider line 40
    More: Interesting, dark matter, black holes, Shine a Light, primordial black holes, dark energy, water balloon, ripples, observable  
•       •       •

2743 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Sep 2011 at 2:00 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2011-09-26 11:57:07 AM
have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?
 
2011-09-26 02:10:56 PM

namatad: have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?


Yes. Those kept coming up zero, but they keep tripping over the dark matter when they weigh things.
 
2011-09-26 02:34:19 PM
namatad:

have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?

Well, yes. Over 110 years ago actually.

Do try to keep up, Bond.
 
2011-09-26 02:45:07 PM

maxheck: Well, yes. Over 110 years ago actually.


(that was the joke)

and the phlogiston theory was discredited in 1753 (or perhaps 1783 if you want to credit Lavoisier for it)
 
2011-09-26 03:08:59 PM
t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-09-26 03:13:03 PM
For once, a dark matter theory that doesn't make me want to travel to a physicists house and defile their doctorate. This is the best idea I've seen on dark matter detection to date.

It doesn't rely on some imaginary garbage that nobody's ever observed. I think some scientists are getting too impressed with their command of mathematics, they're fixated on imagining things with specific properties rather than trying to figure out how what we've already know can exist, might be responsible for our observations. (I'm looking at you too, Higg-seekers)
 
2011-09-26 03:24:19 PM

amindtat: [t1.gstatic.com image 240x210]


That guy lives three houses down from me, you wouldn't believe the amount of mail he gets.
 
2011-09-26 03:32:10 PM
What a unicorn may look like

images.wikia.com
 
2011-09-26 03:32:27 PM

t3knomanser: namatad: have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?

Yes. Those kept coming up zero, but they keep tripping over the dark matter when they weigh things.


your point?
FFS I have a physics degree.
I was there when the tards at the APA voted on cold fusion and wept.
(not because cold fusion was or wasnt real, but because science does not work by polling the scientist about what they believe.)

occam's razor
the number of fudge factions which have been included to fit the data and then removed once we actually understand reality a little better is a never ending part of science.

Cosmological constant anyone? it's real, no it's not, whoops maybe it is back again.
I LOVE that science works this way.

but in the end, the simpler explanation has always ended up being the right one.

/mmmmmmmmmmmmm pair productuion
 
2011-09-26 03:39:59 PM
I'm more a fan of Pegasus myself.
 
2011-09-26 03:40:36 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It doesn't rely on some imaginary garbage that nobody's ever observed.


Except that tiny little core part about the primordial black holes....
 
2011-09-26 03:45:09 PM

namatad: t3knomanser: namatad: have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?

Yes. Those kept coming up zero, but they keep tripping over the dark matter when they weigh things.

your point?
FFS I have a physics degree.
I was there when the tards at the APA voted on cold fusion and wept.
(not because cold fusion was or wasnt real, but because science does not work by polling the scientist about what they believe.)

occam's razor
the number of fudge factions which have been included to fit the data and then removed once we actually understand reality a little better is a never ending part of science.

Cosmological constant anyone? it's real, no it's not, whoops maybe it is back again.
I LOVE that science works this way.

but in the end, the simpler explanation has always ended up being the right one.

/mmmmmmmmmmmmm pair productuion


(what am I reading.tiff)
 
2011-09-26 04:00:24 PM

namatad: t3knomanser: namatad: have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?

Yes. Those kept coming up zero, but they keep tripping over the dark matter when they weigh things.

your point?
FFS I have a physics degree.
I was there when the tards at the APA voted on cold fusion and wept.
(not because cold fusion was or wasnt real, but because science does not work by polling the scientist about what they believe.)

occam's razor
the number of fudge factions which have been included to fit the data and then removed once we actually understand reality a little better is a never ending part of science.

Cosmological constant anyone? it's real, no it's not, whoops maybe it is back again.
I LOVE that science works this way.

but in the end, the simpler explanation has always ended up being the right one.

/mmmmmmmmmmmmm pair productuion



You forget, this is FARK. Anyone daring to say anything less than fawning and starry-eyed about science is a FUNDAMENTALIST NUTBALL THAT HATES SCIENCE!!!
 
2011-09-26 04:33:40 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: It doesn't rely on some imaginary garbage that nobody's ever observed. I think some scientists are getting too impressed with their command of mathematics, they're fixated on imagining things with specific properties rather than trying to figure out how what we've already know can exist, might be responsible for our observations. (I'm looking at you too, Higg-seekers)


See, I hate when people speak of dark matter as if it were something that hasn't been observed. Just because we've only observed via gravitational forces doesn't mean it hasn't been observed. It's like denying the existence of quarks because we've only observed the traces of their by-products, or saying that we haven't observed black holes because all we've seen is the radiation from infalling material, or claiming love doesn't exist because we can't directly detect brain-waves associated with it.

Dark matter's out there. We don't know what it is yet, and I don't have hopes for us knowing for quite a while, almost certainly after either the Higgs is discovered and the Standard Model validated, or we fail to discover it and we have to fundamentally reorganize the math.
 
2011-09-26 04:53:17 PM

thatguyfred: amindtat: [t1.gstatic.com image 240x210]

That guy lives three houses down from me, you wouldn't believe the amount of mail he gets.


We demand proof -- get a picture of him checking his mailbox and post it.
 
2011-09-26 05:14:27 PM
PONY THREAD
 
2011-09-26 05:53:35 PM

LazarusLong42: Just because we've only observed via gravitational forces doesn't mean it hasn't been observed


Yes it does.

We've observed the gravity.

We know that 4 - 5% of the gravity in the universe is caused by or related to matter.

Honestly, given that we haven't even found the Higgs and therefore still have a major hole in our understanding of gravity, are you willing to entirely commit to the view that the remaining 90+% of gravity must also be caused by or related to matter[1]?

If I was a betting man I'd bet that we won't find the Higgs and the new theory of gravity that will necessarily result will explain dark gravity without dark matter.

[1] Or energy, which is just a wishy-washy form of matter that won't settle down and make something of itself.
 
2011-09-26 06:00:17 PM

BarryJV: Honestly, given that we haven't even found the Higgs and therefore still have a major hole in our understanding of gravity, are you willing to entirely commit to the view that the remaining 90+% of gravity must also be caused by or related to matter[1]?


Yes.

Right up until the point somebody else comes up with a better explanation. That's how science works.
 
2011-09-26 06:17:00 PM
img.ponibooru.org

What Dark Matter Butterflies might look like.
 
2011-09-26 06:37:04 PM

BarryJV: LazarusLong42: Just because we've only observed via gravitational forces doesn't mean it hasn't been observed

Yes it does.

We've observed the gravity.

We know that 4 - 5% of the gravity in the universe is caused by or related to matter.

Honestly, given that we haven't even found the Higgs and therefore still have a major hole in our understanding of gravity, are you willing to entirely commit to the view that the remaining 90+% of gravity must also be caused by or related to matter[1]?

If I was a betting man I'd bet that we won't find the Higgs and the new theory of gravity that will necessarily result will explain dark gravity without dark matter.

[1] Or energy, which is just a wishy-washy form of matter that won't settle down and make something of itself.


Essentially all observations of macroscopic gravity conform exactly to what is predicted by general relativity. GR has been confirmed to be a good description of such systems in an absurd number of experiments and observations.

So claiming that its suddenly going to be hugely wrong in microscopic situations is pretty crazy IMO. At best your claim is not at all supported by any experimental or observational evidence.

This is especially true since our observations which indicate the existence of dark matter have so many independent tests that can all be resolved in a very natural way with Dark Matter. Coming up with a reasonable alternative theory of gravity that explained all the independent observations of dark matter using different techniques seems unlikely, but we do have a gravitational theory (GR) that has always worked spectacularly well in such situations.
 
2011-09-26 06:41:52 PM
Link (new window)

Reference.
 
2011-09-26 07:13:12 PM
not to forget, global warming!
 
2011-09-26 07:15:07 PM

Splinshints: Yes.

Right up until the point somebody else comes up with a better explanation.


Pah! Call that commitment?

Personally, I think the current theory(ies) of gravity/mass are not going to survive the missing Higgs. If you ask (and you're bound to ask) what I think will replace them, I'd have to admit I don't know, but I'm just incredibly skeptical about the existence of matter that supposedly makes up 90% of the universe but 0% of our planet, or moon, or our nearest star, or the entire visible solar system.

To me, the answer is that there's a source of gravity that is not matter. At least, not matter that is found in our dimension. (Yeah, I'll give m-theory a chance to be right before I'll believe it to be wrong.)
 
2011-09-26 07:45:50 PM

Krazikarl: At best your claim is not at all supported by any experimental or observational evidence.


I wasn't making a claim, just stating a personal belief. Though I'm not sure why you think that good evidence for GR proves that all gravity is associated with matter. Just because you can work forwards from the properties of any given matter to calculate the observed gravity surely does not imply that you can work backwards from the observed gravity to calculate the properties of matter.

Also, as a matter of principle, dark gravity is an observation, dark matter is an assumption and we should always state the former not the latter.
 
2011-09-26 08:00:15 PM

namatad: t3knomanser: namatad: have they tried measuring the phlogiston in the luminiferous aether?

Yes. Those kept coming up zero, but they keep tripping over the dark matter when they weigh things.

your point?
FFS I have a physics degree.
I was there when the tards at the APA voted on cold fusion and wept.
(not because cold fusion was or wasnt real, but because science does not work by polling the scientist about what they believe.)

occam's razor
the number of fudge factions which have been included to fit the data and then removed once we actually understand reality a little better is a never ending part of science.

Cosmological constant anyone? it's real, no it's not, whoops maybe it is back again.
I LOVE that science works this way.

but in the end, the simpler explanation has always ended up being the right one.

/mmmmmmmmmmmmm pair productuion


I think you may have been exposed to one too many threads with pony pictures.
 
2011-09-26 08:23:54 PM
Somebody had to go and drop a pony on it.
 
2011-09-26 08:27:14 PM
I saw this thread going downhill fast, but then this ship seems to have been righted pretty effectively by the usual experts...

For the armchair cosmologists (like myself) looking for some additional info, one thing you can read about is the Bullet Cluster... I'm a little surprised TFA didn't point this out, as AFAIK it is considered by many to provide important information about the nature of dark matter via gravitational lensing, which is what this philistine understood was the de facto tool for dark matter studies...

One question to the experts though - the primordial black hole is supposed to be passing through the star and is massive enough to cause observable (from here) ripples in the star's spectrum (asteroid sized according to TFA). What are the odds of this?!? i.e. there is, I assume, some prediction(s) for the number of primordial black holes - a spectrum of primordial black hole by mass if you like. We know how many stars there are and their (large) separations. What are the odds a primordial black hole of asteroid-size passes though the meat of a large enough star that is close enough for use to resolve these ripples? Strikes me as a product of many very very very small terms, or?
i.e. is this search actually feasible or just an interesting by ultimately long-shot idea from a simulation?

And re: a couple of threads in the last few days - dark matter is not (again AFAIK) the definitely not massless neutrino. Maybe one of the many experimental searches for a dark matter "particle" (e.g. WIMPs) will get lucky...

cheers
 
2011-09-26 08:30:14 PM
PONIES!!!!!!
 
2011-09-26 09:00:17 PM

Revek: Somebody had to go and drop a pony on it.


I tried to resist, I really did
 
2011-09-26 09:02:39 PM

BarryJV: Splinshints: Yes.

Right up until the point somebody else comes up with a better explanation.

Pah! Call that commitment?

Personally, I think the current theory(ies) of gravity/mass are not going to survive the missing Higgs. If you ask (and you're bound to ask) what I think will replace them, I'd have to admit I don't know, but I'm just incredibly skeptical about the existence of matter that supposedly makes up 90% of the universe but 0% of our planet, or moon, or our nearest star, or the entire visible solar system.

To me, the answer is that there's a source of gravity that is not matter. At least, not matter that is found in our dimension. (Yeah, I'll give m-theory a chance to be right before I'll believe it to be wrong.)


It really isnt surprising that there would be a bunch of stuff out there that is very different than what is in the solar system. Material differentiates itself pretty readily based on its physical properties. For example, all planets have dense stuff in their core and not so dense stuff in their atmosphere because its basic physics that this is what will happen. So it wouldnt be shocking at all if baryons and non baryonic dark matter would separate themselves since they have quite different physical properties (and we infer that this is happening in observations of stuff like the Bullet Cluster). So that our solar system is pretty different than much of the universe would be completely intuitive.

So I dont really get why you would expect the opposite. The shocking thing would be if the whole universe WAS made out of exactly the same stuff as our solar system.

You can also look at this in the context of history. Most of the baryonic content of the universe is in a plasma state. But such a state is relatively rare here on Earth, where we have lots of solids, liquids, and gases. Is it at all shocking that most of the universe is in a different state than what we see here on Earth? Not at all. Its to be expected since Earth is a very exceptional place all things considered. The same argument would apply to baryonic vs non baryonic matter.

I also think that you vastly overstate the significance of the "missing" Higgs. The results there are VERY preliminary. Particle physics takes a lot of time to do quickly since the analysis is extremely non trivial and mistakes are made all the times there. Its a bit hard to deal with in this internet age where everything happens very quickly, but it will be a long time yet before you should place any real significance on the supposed missing Higgs.
 
2011-09-26 09:14:23 PM

BarryJV: Krazikarl: At best your claim is not at all supported by any experimental or observational evidence.

I wasn't making a claim, just stating a personal belief. Though I'm not sure why you think that good evidence for GR proves that all gravity is associated with matter. Just because you can work forwards from the properties of any given matter to calculate the observed gravity surely does not imply that you can work backwards from the observed gravity to calculate the properties of matter.

Also, as a matter of principle, dark gravity is an observation, dark matter is an assumption and we should always state the former not the latter.


Our best theory of gravity predicts that matter and gravity exist in a one to one relationship (that is, you dont get one or the other). We dont have any observations that contradict this other than perhaps Dark Matter. So you essentially have a choice - you can propose that gravity is acting in a way that that completely contradicts our best theories and doesnt match any of our observations of the local universe (your approach), or you can propose that there is some stuff out there that doesnt interact with electromagnetic radiation much (the Dark Matter approach). Heck, we even know of particles already that basically dont interact at all via electromagnetic forces (e.g. neutrinos), so the second approach is hardly a leap at all.

Also, keep in mind that the Dark Matter approach has been quite successful in making predictions about the universe that had previously not been considered (for example, the Bullet Cluster), while alternative theories of gravity have really fallen apart there.

You also arent using the term "Dark Gravity" correctly. Any observed gravitational effects are simply called gravity. Dark Gravity is a theoretical idea where gravity deviates from what is predicted in GR on very large size scales. Its most certainly not an observation at this point in time. Also, Dark Matter is not an assumption, its a theory. A theory and an assumption are quite different in science.
 
2011-09-26 09:19:21 PM
BTW - the Higg's mechanism accounts for a quite tiny fraction of the observed mass of the universe. The mass of the light quarks (u,d,s), which make up protons and neutrons and the most common light mesons and baryons, is almost entirely resulting from the QCD Langrangian, not the Higg's mechanism.

the majority of the heavy quark masses (c,b,t) is from the posited Higg's mechanism but these constitute a pretty much negligible fraction of the universe's mass...

cheers
 
2011-09-26 09:28:03 PM
my spelling errors entirely account for the missing mass, obviously.

/apologies
 
2011-09-26 09:28:32 PM
I read a science article once, so I'll argue with other nonscientists on the interweb about theoretical cutting edge science and how dumb/smart actual physicists doing cutting edge research really are!

:P
 
2011-09-26 09:35:16 PM

BarryJV: We've observed the gravity.


And Dark Matter is whatever is causing that gravity.
 
2011-09-26 10:30:47 PM
www.nightmarepark.com



//perfect for your Halloween music needs :)
 
2011-09-26 10:32:39 PM

GilRuiz1: You forget, this is FARK. Anyone daring to say anything less than fawning and starry-eyed about science is a FUNDAMENTALIST NUTBALL THAT HATES SCIENCE!!!


Simple-minded folks like simple answers that never change.

t3knomanser: BarryJV: We've observed the gravity.

And Dark Matter is whatever is causing that gravity.


I think it's caused by the sheer volume of intergalactic spacecraft. Made of tin foil and propelled by kerosene.
 
2011-09-27 01:43:29 AM
FTFA:
Researchers have simulated

Stopped reading there. Garbage in, garbage out.
 
2011-09-27 07:13:52 AM

Splinshints: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It doesn't rely on some imaginary garbage that nobody's ever observed.

Except that tiny little core part about the primordial black holes....


We know black holes exist, which means the theory has a level of credibility beyond 99% of other dark matter theories.

LazarusLong42: See, I hate when people speak of dark matter as if it were something that hasn't been observed. Just because we've only observed via gravitational forces doesn't mean it hasn't been observed.


Jesus... farking... christ! Seriously learn to read. I'm not disputing that dark matter may exist, only many of the bullshiat explanations physicists come up with using particles that exist nowhere but their own imagination.
 
2011-09-27 09:19:53 AM

thatguyfred: amindtat: [t1.gstatic.com image 240x210]

That guy lives three houses down from me, you wouldn't believe the amount of mail he gets.


From aliens?
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report