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.

(Forbes)   The LIGO results are in. What does it mean for dark matter? Here are your winners and losers   ( forbes.com) divider line
    More: Cool, dark matter, black holes, gravitational waves, cold dark matter, primordial black holes, Gravitation, dark matter problem, gravitational wave  
•       •       •

1559 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Dec 2017 at 3:20 PM (30 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-12-12 11:15:01 AM  
The losers are anyone that goes to Forbes for science news.
 
2017-12-12 11:20:37 AM  
What you can do with LIGO:

The White Stripes-Fell In Love With A Girl
Youtube fTH71AAxXmM
 
2017-12-12 02:30:00 PM  
I hope Forbes is paying for these.
 
2017-12-12 02:57:20 PM  
Still, for Forbes, not a bad article.

What a time to be alive!
 
2017-12-12 03:11:37 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Still, for Forbes, not a bad article.

What a time to be alive!


Ethan Siegel is a decent science writer. His articles on science oriented sites were linked on Fark before Forbes picked him up and if I remember correctly, no one complained about his writing/articles then.
 
2017-12-12 03:23:51 PM  

dittybopper: What you can do with LIGO:

[Youtube-video https://www.youtube.com/embed/fTH71AAx​XmM]


Came to say 'I just hate stepping on a LIGO in bare feet'.

Good clip; thanks.
 
2017-12-12 03:48:36 PM  
I'm fairly confident that physicists are just making shiat up to troll us.
 
2017-12-12 03:55:22 PM  
Obligatory:
LIGO Feel That Space (The Weeknd parody) | A Capella Science
Youtube degD69wnZcY
 
2017-12-12 03:56:23 PM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
XSV
2017-12-12 04:07:27 PM  
Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.
 
2017-12-12 04:12:08 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.


*pat* *pat*

I'm sure you thought that was very clever.
 
2017-12-12 04:12:17 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: Still, for Forbes, not a bad article.

What a time to be alive a simulation!


ftfy
I chuckled at the Loser: wimps
 
2017-12-12 04:18:37 PM  
I thought Dark Matter was already cancelled.
 
2017-12-12 04:27:35 PM  
Dark matter, the cover-up revealed:
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-12-12 04:52:31 PM  
Best use of LIGO:

Lego Spinal Tap - Nigel's Guitar Room
Youtube At887GsraAQ
 
2017-12-12 05:46:21 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.


This is the sort of thread where I can understand bits but usually end up very happy knowing how little we do know and wondering what we'll learn next.
 
2017-12-12 05:55:28 PM  
 
img.fark.netView Full Size


LIGO
 
2017-12-12 06:00:39 PM  

jaggspb: Tr0mBoNe: Still, for Forbes, not a bad article.

What a time to be alive a simulation!

ftfy
I chuckled at the Loser: wimps


Hungry for apples?
 
2017-12-12 06:01:16 PM  
I still can't believe how much stuff we've learned in just a few years.  Amazing times for cosmology and theoretical physics.
 
2017-12-12 06:08:41 PM  
Forbesd in the butthole.
 
2017-12-12 06:13:20 PM  
beersyndicate.comView Full Size


The only Dark Matter that matters.
 
2017-12-12 07:58:53 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.


Sarcasm is best wielded with precision, like a scalpel.

You, by contrast, have flailed it about like a clumsy kid trying to hit a piñata.
 
2017-12-12 08:29:53 PM  

Morchella: Tr0mBoNe: Still, for Forbes, not a bad article.

What a time to be alive!

Ethan Siegel is a decent science writer. His articles on science oriented sites were linked on Fark before Forbes picked him up and if I remember correctly, no one complained about his writing/articles then.


Came here to say this!   It's Ethan Siegel's blog,  "Starts with a bang".   Which has been around and frequently linked from fark for almost a decade.  Why all the hate just because it's currently hosted by Forbes?
 
XSV
2017-12-12 09:34:21 PM  

Andric: XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.

Sarcasm is best wielded with precision, like a scalpel.

You, by contrast, have flailed it about like a clumsy kid trying to hit a piñata.


You're right. I forgot to include snark in my description. I'll try not to be so careless next time.

You and Martian astronomer, are helping to prove my point nicely though, so thank you for that.
 
2017-12-12 09:45:48 PM  

XSV: You and Martian astronomer, are helping to prove my point nicely though, so thank you for that.


Let's back up: If I thought that you actually wished to discuss the similarities and differences between the fairly well-supported existence of dark matter and...whatever else you were attempting to parallel, I do not think I would have responded quite so dismissively. If you would actually like to lay out an argument that the existence of dark matter is somehow taken on faith, and then assert that this is somehow an accurate parallel to  "a different thing you can't prove exists or not,"then I will apologize for my snark. Otherwise, I don't know what you expected.
 
2017-12-12 10:47:43 PM  

XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.


I agree with this. The proponents of supersymmetry theories were kind of hypocritical for looking down their noses at people who proposed alternatives to dark matter. Alternate gravity theories certainly are unlikely, more and more, but supersymmetry theories had just as little evidence and very little to motivate them. (There are almost no experimental results that SUSY explains; it does nothing but make numbers play nice. Alternate gravity theories actually try to explain something that can't be explained.). And yet SUSY theorists always considered themselves mainstream science and look down at the alternate gravity theorists as fringe.  And that's wrong.

Thanks for pointing this out. This was an excellent post.
 
2017-12-13 06:44:11 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The losers are anyone that goes to Forbes for science news.


Can you point to anything inaccurate or misleading about the article itself, or is your objection solely to the name of the website?  I thought it was a cool read.
 
2017-12-13 07:30:42 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: The losers are anyone that goes to Forbes for science news.


You remind of the article that was posted a day or so ago about Somali scholarship and the story of how the British dismissed a malaria source theory because of the origin of the theory.

I'm not saying Forbes is a scholarly journal, but your use of an ad hominem attack to dismiss out hand a decent and informative article was a jolly good show, old chap.
 
2017-12-13 07:36:41 AM  

XSV: Is this the thread where everyone comes out as being an expert in putting their faith in a thing that no one can prove exists or not, but pretend like its a foregone conclusion.  All the while looking down noses and laughing at people, who believe a different thing you can't prove exists or not, claiming they are wrong and how stupid they are? Making sure to pat our fellow believers on the back for the continual propagation of an echo chamber since shouting down anyone who doesn't agree long ago.


No.  That's over in the politics tab to the right of where you have landed.  This is a thread  about science and the proof of gravitational waves and how that proof is making it difficult for some theories to maintain legitimacy because of proof.  Seagulling is politics tab stuff.  Good day to you.


I said good day.
 
XSV
2017-12-13 09:03:54 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: XSV: You and Martian astronomer, are helping to prove my point nicely though, so thank you for that.

Let's back up: If I thought that you actually wished to discuss the similarities and differences between the fairly well-supported existence of dark matter and...whatever else you were attempting to parallel, I do not think I would have responded quite so dismissively. If you would actually like to lay out an argument that the existence of dark matter is somehow taken on faith, and then assert that this is somehow an accurate parallel to  "a different thing you can't prove exists or not,"then I will apologize for my snark. Otherwise, I don't know what you expected.


Sorry I guess a bit of saltiness carried over since in the past week I've seen threads in the Geek tab that played out of everyone patting themselves on the back.  As far as my actual perspective of this goes.  My understanding of dark matter is that it exists because our current models call for it to exist for those models to work.  So I'd kind of reflect back in that the burden of proof still relies on the model/theory makers to show said proof.  Dark Energy is already going on shaky legs from replication experiments that created the need for dark energy in the first place (source).

I can't find the article on it, but I seem to remember there was an article a while back where a south american observatory tried to look for evidence of dark matter in our own solar system and came up with nothing.
 
2017-12-13 10:48:12 AM  

XSV: Sorry I guess a bit of saltiness carried over since in the past week I've seen threads in the Geek tab that played out of everyone patting themselves on the back.  As far as my actual perspective of this goes.  My understanding of dark matter is that it exists because our current models call for it to exist for those models to work.  So I'd kind of reflect back in that the burden of proof still relies on the model/theory makers to show said proof.  Dark Energy is already going on shaky legs from replication experiments that created the need for dark energy in the first place (source).

I can't find the article on it, but I seem to remember there was an article a while back where a south american observatory tried to look for evidence of dark matter in our own solar system and came up with nothing.


Okay, so I see two separate issues here: The first is sort of a distrust of "models" in general. The second is the idea that dark matter only shows up in one or two cases.

"Models" in science are simplified, abstracted ways of calculating and describing the behavior of a system. Newtonian gravity and general relativity could both be called "models." They can be right, they can be wrong, and or just imperfect, but they can also become much stronger with rigorous testing and revision. Dark Matter has been under tremendous scrutiny since the '70's, and it is the strongest explanation for a lot of behavior in many different cosmological systems. (More on that in a minute.) The idea isn't just taken on faith that a couple guys in a basement put the right input into their computer models of galactic rotation; it's the most parsimonious way that thousands of scientists have found to explain a huge slew of different phenomena.

Could current theories about dark matter be wrong? Sure. But there is a lot of evidence that is most parsimoniously explained by dark matter, and parsimoniously explaining the available evidence is pretty much the most you can ask from a model.

As far as evidence for dark matter, yes, galactic rotation speed and density is one piece of evidence. However, there are a lot of other observations that are also explained not only by the existence of dark matter but by similar masses and distributions of dark matter. These include the density of the circumgalactic medium, the size of baryonic acoustic oscillations measured in the cosmic microwave background, and the derived mass from gravitational lensing of galaxies. All of these observations indicate that there is extra mass out there that is gravitationally bound but not luminous. Astrophysicists are still working hard to figure out what the heck the dark matter actually is, but astronomers studying the large scale structure of the universe consider dark matter the best way to make sense of what's out there. That's not faith. That's a model based on a lot of evidence.

I'm not sure what you're referring to as far as the "dark matter in the solar system" paper goes. Your linked paper is one that may or may not cast real doubt on current theories about dark energy (and I'm not familiar with the discussion that's happened regarding that result in the last year,) but I do know that there is a lot of weirdness when you talk about the Hubble parameter on cosmological timescales. One of the biggest outstanding problems in astrophysics is the fact that astrophysicists get different values for the Hubble parameter from baryonic acoustic oscillations vs. the standard Hubble cosmic distance ladder, and they don't know why. However, rather than being defensive, everything I've seen or read on the topic indicates that scientists are excited about what new physics they're going to discover.
 
XSV
2017-12-13 11:31:07 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: Okay, so I see two separate issues here: The first is sort of a distrust of "models" in general. The second is the idea that dark matter only shows up in one or two cases.



Thank you for the information there, I'll be sure to start trying to unpack all of it since some of it's new. I won't pretend to know more than you on this particular subject or the systems involved with it. I'll look into the things you've outlined more but I would like to at least clarify my position on this.

First is a distrust of models.  I have more of a specific distrust of these cosmic scale models.  I personally think that we're trying to run before we're walking. I think we need to understand and master our immediate area before moving on too much to the bigger picture.  I'm not sure if it's just the old science reporting trope of the big flashy headlines, but the ones you see occurring the most in this field are the ones around dark matter and distant galaxies.  There seems to be a lot of extrapolation on top of other extrapolations, things like the drake equation come to mind here.  In reality we have a very limited point of observation from our own planet and are just now getting probes and other things out there to get us better data, like all the things we've recently been able to see with Ceres, Pluto, Saturn, etc.
  Now I realize we won't ever be able to do similar things on the scales of galaxies and things like that, but it appears there's a lack of focus on increasing/refining the tools we have.  I know we're trying to get there With the James Webb and are making use with just what we have currently.  Right now it seems like we're trying to fully understand a whole house by looking in a keyhole from the front door.  Again I realize you can make the argument of the old Rumsfeld known unknowns and unknown unknowns and the only way to to get the latter to the former is by working through these issues.  I get fatigue as a layperson trying to root through all the reporting and other talk to try and get to the bottom line.

I love science and understanding the way things work, but right now all the attempts at understanding it  seems like some of the early theory of Impetus scenarios.  My bottom line is with all the current manpower and technology it lends itself to 2 outcomes: either we don't have sufficient technology to properly detect dark matter (which I talked about above we need to refine our observation methods), or there's something wrong with the models we're using that is creating the hiccup.  Right now I'm leaning towards the latter.
 
2017-12-13 01:35:44 PM  

recondite cetacean: Forbesd in the butthole.


You are Chuck Tingle and I claim my five pounds.
 
2017-12-13 01:49:00 PM  

XSV: First is a distrust of models.  I have more of a specific distrust of these cosmic scale models.  I personally think that we're trying to run before we're walking. I think we need to understand and master our immediate area before moving on too much to the bigger picture.


Well, there are certain effects that don't manifest themselves obviously until you get to larger scales, and certain effects that are much more technologically feasible to measure for distant objects than near ones. (Contrast measurements of red-shift for distant galaxies with the minuscule changes in wavelength involved in Precision Radial Velocity measurements, as one example.) Moreover, much like the Hubble Distance ladder, a lot of these models get tested multiple times along the way - it's not just extrapolation, it's extrapolation and then testing, which is one thing that distinguishes modern astrophysics from your Theory of Impetus paradigm. The things that are being analyzed now are bit more complex than Newtonian mechanics, but they're no less subject to empirical scrutiny, which is why "best explanation" is qualitatively different from "taking things on faith."

/ I apologize for the earlier snark; you know how people dump and run in these threads.
 
XSV
2017-12-13 02:03:57 PM  

Martian_Astronomer: XSV: First is a distrust of models.  I have more of a specific distrust of these cosmic scale models.  I personally think that we're trying to run before we're walking. I think we need to understand and master our immediate area before moving on too much to the bigger picture.

Well, there are certain effects that don't manifest themselves obviously until you get to larger scales, and certain effects that are much more technologically feasible to measure for distant objects than near ones. (Contrast measurements of red-shift for distant galaxies with the minuscule changes in wavelength involved in Precision Radial Velocity measurements, as one example.) Moreover, much like the Hubble Distance ladder, a lot of these models get tested multiple times along the way - it's not just extrapolation, it's extrapolation and then testing, which is one thing that distinguishes modern astrophysics from your Theory of Impetus paradigm. The things that are being analyzed now are bit more complex than Newtonian mechanics, but they're no less subject to empirical scrutiny, which is why "best explanation" is qualitatively different from "taking things on faith."

/ I apologize for the earlier snark; you know how people dump and run in these threads.


No need to apologize at all. I kind of came out the gate swinging because here lately it seems like there's no room for discussion on topics. I appreciate you proving me wrong in that regard, in fact that's what I was hoping would happen. Though it was rather dumb of me to lead with sarcasm expecting a earnest and non snarky return.
 
2017-12-13 06:43:22 PM  
There are a lot of respected physics theorists that have just discovered that the last 20 years of their lives have been a total loss. lol
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report