View Single Post
Old June 5 2013, 08:54 PM   #91
FlyingLemons
Vice Admiral
 
FlyingLemons's Avatar
 
Location: Edinburgh/London
Re: Strange Dark Matter Theory

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But not dark matter, which is what that paragraph was referring to.
The "dark matter problem" is not a consensus, even in theoretical physics. Some physicists don't even accept the existence of dark matter and believe it's just weird gravity effects... cosmologists haven't just decided "dark matter exists" without proving it and if the LCDM model was violated it'd be chucked out along with the steady-state universe and others that proceeded it.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
But are actually related to quantum gravity and m-theory, and -- again, only going by what I hear from gripes -- is a delicate balance of proposing the new theory without offending the biases of establishmentarians.
What "establishment" do you speak of? If you present a coherent case for a program of study to most funding councils, generally you'll get a fair hearing and most of the time funding is turned down because there just isn't enough.

Many who rail against "the establishment" not listening to them aren't maverick geniuses that threaten "the consensus", whatever that is, but often people who lack the personal skills to be able to be in a room with others.

There are "independent researchers" outside the physics community, who often have the above problems but also generally tend to tie their "research" in with unscientific New Age ideas or who have theories that are mathematically unsound. Appointing any of these individuals to an academic position would be a waste of public money, as aside from anything the return on their "research" would be non-existent.

Before anyone mentions it, the idea that funding particle physics and astrophysics research that is seemingly esoteric to the layman is a waste is a lie. In particular, the study of computational quantum field theory is a key driver of the development of massively parallel computer architectures such as QCDOC which have commercial applications. Many of these things would be horrendously difficult to develop on the timescales demanded by the free market.

Crazy Eddie wrote: View Post
If I ever did get around to I'd start from the latter -- getting the transformations work in a high curvature -- and then work backwards to the observational evidence to see if the numbers are (or could be made) consistent with it.
In order to do that, you'd have to first to start reinventing what we know about differential geometry in order to get it to work before even starting to think about applications to physics.

I think proving that highly curved spaces are in fact flat would raise eyebrows among geometers and topologists, let along theoretical physicists.
__________________
"Goverment, keep yore hands of my medicare" - the Tea Party in one sentence.
FlyingLemons is offline   Reply With Quote