• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do not multiply entities unnecessarily

Metryq

Fleet Captain
Fleet Captain
This qualifies as research? Observation-free science—Occam's razor has been tossed out the window, unfortunately slicing the carotid of real science who happened to be walking by at the time.

The computer time would have been better spent by the animation class working on their Pixar wanna-be projects. Seriously. (Is it April first, or something?)

http://today.ku.edu/2014/09/03/researcher-advances-new-model-cosmological-enigma-dark-matter

Researcher advances a new model for dark matter

LAWRENCE — Astrophysicists believe that about 80 percent of the substance of our universe is made up of mysterious “dark matter” that can’t be perceived by human senses or scientific instruments.

“Dark matter has not yet been detected in a lab. We infer about it from astronomical observations,” said Mikhail Medvedev, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Kansas, who has just published breakthrough research on dark matter that merited the cover of Physical Review Letters, the world’s most prestigious journal of physics research.

Medvedev proposes a novel model of dark matter, dubbed “flavor-mixed multicomponent dark matter.”

“Dark matter is some unknown matter, most likely a new elementary particle or particles beyond the Standard Model,” Medvedev said. “It has never been observed directly, but it reveals itself via gravity it produces in the universe. There are numerous experiments around the world aimed at finding it directly.”

Medvedev’s theory rests on the behavior of elementary particles that have been observed or hypothesized. According to today’s prevalent Standard Model theory of particle physics, elementary particles — categorized as varieties of quarks, leptons and gauge bosons — are the building blocks of an atom. The properties, or “flavors,” of quarks and leptons are prone to change back and forth, because they can combine with each other in a phenomenon called flavor-mixing.

“In everyday life we’ve become used to the fact that each and every particle or an atom has a certain mass,” Medvedev said. “A flavor-mixed particle is weird — it has several masses simultaneously — and this leads to fascinating and unusual effects.”

Medvedev compared flavor-mixing to white light that contains several colors and can generate a rainbow.

“If white was a particular flavor, then red, green and blue would be different masses — masses one, two and three — that mix up together to create white,” he said. “By changing proportions of red, green and blue in the mix, one can make different colors, or flavors, other than white.”

Medvedev said that dark matter candidates are also theorized to be flavor-mixed — such as neutralinos, axions and sterile neutrinos.

“These are, in fact, the most preferred candidates people speak about all the time,” Medvedev said.

“Previously we discovered that flavor-mixed particles can ‘quantum evaporate’ from a gravitational well if they are ‘shaken’ — meaning they collide with another particle,” he said. “That's a remarkable result, as if a spacecraft made of flavor-mixed matter and hauled along a bumpy road puts itself into space without a rocket or any other means or effort by us.”

Medvedev included the physics process of quantum evaporation in a “cosmological numerical code” and performed simulations using supercomputers.

“Each simulation utilized over a 1,000 cores and ran for a week or so,” he said. “This yearlong project consumed about 2 million computer hours in total, which is equal to 230 years.”

Medvedev said that dark matter may interact with normal matter extremely weakly, which is why it hasn’t been revealed already in numerous ongoing direct detection experiments around the world. So physicists have devised a working model of completely collisionless (noninteracting), cold (that is, having very low thermal velocities) dark matter with a cosmological constant (the perplexing energy density found in the void of outer space), which they term the “Lambda-CDM model.”

But the model has hasn’t always agreed with observational data, until Medvedev’s paper solved the theory’s long-standing and troublesome puzzles.

“Our results demonstrated that the flavor-mixed, two-component dark matter model resolved all the most pressing Lambda-CDM problems simultaneously,” said the KU researcher.

Medvedev performed the simulations using XSEDE high-performance computation facilities, primarily Trestles at the San Diego Supercomputer Center and Ranger at the Texas Advanced Computing Center.
 
Subatomic wizards.

My theory is that they are furry subatomic wizards. I never bought into that whole no-hair nonsense. A bunch of theoretical physicists made this stuff up to explain why their tiny telescopes can't see the black hole's hair, yet none of them can actually explain why there's hair every time I look through my telescope. I am certain that both black holes and subatomic particles are hairier than my pet targ, because I can also see a whole lot of hairs through my microscope too.

As a side note, does anyone a good way to keep your targ away from optical equipment? Mine constantly tries to get into the boxes. It is annoying.
 
I really don't understand the OP's complaint.

There are many things whose existence is inferred from it's effects on other things.

Wind, for example.
 
More seriously, though: dark matter and dark energy are abstractions to describe behaviors of the universe for which we currently lack a good explanation. They are much maligned because we cannot directly observe them, but at this point in the field of physics it's to be expected that we cannot directly observe everything we seek to explain.

As we delve deeper and deeper into the physics that hold together our universe, the observations are telling us the same thing, over and over: there are forces affecting the universe around us that we cannot observe or (yet) manipulate. It seems more and more likely that mass, as we observe it, exists in our universe but also in some realm we can't see, where it is still able to impart its gravity upon our observable universe, even though we cannot detect it otherwise. Obviously, this is pretty weird, but the more research we do, the more this appears to be the case.

What detractors evidently want is a simple, elegant, easy-to-explain universe. The fact is, our universe is none of those things. It's complex, strange, and the math required to understand it is quite sophisticated. I'm sure scientists would love a simple and easy explanation that fits it all together--that is, after all, what the search for a unified theory of gravity is all about. But it is likely to remain elusive because our universe is just too stubbornly strange to be boxed in by human demands for simplicity.
 
So what's your theory of mass/gravity?

I don't have to have one to poke holes in existing theories; that is the point of science, attempting to falsify existing theories to see if they can hold up. So far, there is nothing to endorse dark matter. What we have is an embarrassing lack of evidence. You seem to be missing the fact that "dark matter" was meant to solve a problem, but has paramount problems of its own to be solved. That sort of recursion should immediately suggest that "dark matter" is barking up the wrong tree.

Dark matter was invented for the sole purpose of explaining galactic rotation curves. Dark matter is "non-baryonic" (imaginary) matter that cannot be seen, nor does it interact with known matter—except through gravity. That doesn't immediately set alarm bells ringing that dark matter is completely ad hoc, invented only to "save the phenomenon"?

Others have attempted to solve the problem with MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

Still others have asked the most obvious question: does some other force than gravity control the movement of galaxies? Only establishment physicists would accuse someone of heresy for asking such a question, rather than demonstrating how (perhaps) their alternative hypothesis might be falsified.

This qualifies as research?
Of course it does. Something you quite obviously don't do.

I call it "telescope envy".

Again, we have the professor speaking ex cathedra—always ad hominem, but never a scientific comment. It's easy to speak with authority on a sci-fi forum, isn't it?

"Oh, I don't give free lessons. Sign up for a class."

Then how about suggesting some paper or book that might alter my opinion, rather than being snarky all the time?
 
So what's your theory of mass/gravity?

I don't have to have one to poke holes in existing theories; that is the point of science, attempting to falsify existing theories to see if they can hold up. So far, there is nothing to endorse dark matter. What we have is an embarrassing lack of evidence. You seem to be missing the fact that "dark matter" was meant to solve a problem, but has paramount problems of its own to be solved. That sort of recursion should immediately suggest that "dark matter" is barking up the wrong tree.

Dark matter was invented for the sole purpose of explaining galactic rotation curves. Dark matter is "non-baryonic" (imaginary) matter that cannot be seen, nor does it interact with known matter—except through gravity. That doesn't immediately set alarm bells ringing that dark matter is completely ad hoc, invented only to "save the phenomenon"?

Others have attempted to solve the problem with MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

Still others have asked the most obvious question: does some other force than gravity control the movement of galaxies? Only establishment physicists would accuse someone of heresy for asking such a question, rather than demonstrating how (perhaps) their alternative hypothesis might be falsified.

So you don't have an alternative, but you want our best model (imperfect and incomplete though it is) thrown away?

Good luck with that.
 
I don't have to have one to poke holes in existing theories; that is the point of science, attempting to falsify existing theories to see if they can hold up.

Nope.

The purpose of science is to use rational methods to explain the way the universe works.

Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory, experimentation, (publish and peer review), and occasionally, law.

Seems like the proponents of dark matter are following that process. You may disagree with their conclusions, but insinuating that their methods or indeed the entire scientific process is wrong with a single shred of proof seems to be a bit out of line.
 
So what's your theory of mass/gravity?

I don't have to have one to poke holes in existing theories; that is the point of science, attempting to falsify existing theories to see if they can hold up. So far, there is nothing to endorse dark matter. What we have is an embarrassing lack of evidence. You seem to be missing the fact that "dark matter" was meant to solve a problem, but has paramount problems of its own to be solved. That sort of recursion should immediately suggest that "dark matter" is barking up the wrong tree.

Dark matter was invented for the sole purpose of explaining galactic rotation curves. Dark matter is "non-baryonic" (imaginary) matter that cannot be seen, nor does it interact with known matter—except through gravity. That doesn't immediately set alarm bells ringing that dark matter is completely ad hoc, invented only to "save the phenomenon"?

Others have attempted to solve the problem with MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.

Still others have asked the most obvious question: does some other force than gravity control the movement of galaxies? Only establishment physicists would accuse someone of heresy for asking such a question, rather than demonstrating how (perhaps) their alternative hypothesis might be falsified.

This qualifies as research?
Of course it does. Something you quite obviously don't do.

I call it "telescope envy".

Again, we have the professor speaking ex cathedra—always ad hominem, but never a scientific comment. It's easy to speak with authority on a sci-fi forum, isn't it?

"Oh, I don't give free lessons. Sign up for a class."

Then how about suggesting some paper or book that might alter my opinion, rather than being snarky all the time?

Wait a second. I think I have seen you crusade against dark matter several times before. You understand that even scientists say they have no real idea what it is, right? Everything proposed at this point is based on models and are simply considered candidates until we can test more of the predictions of the various models. I think your frustration with dark matters is actually more of a frustration over our limitations in knowledge at the present and limitations on what we can test. There is no scientific consensus as to what dark matter is, so you really are railing against the same people putting out ideas to try to uncover more information. How would you have them proceed instead? Pick a wild theory, declare it true, and then move on?
 
Still others have asked the most obvious question: does some other force than gravity control the movement of galaxies?

really huge wizards?

Which would be the only option at this point. It cannot be a universal change in the laws of physics – the effects are localized, and no global change can account for the gravitational lensing observations. It cannot be dark matter – because... I still cannot tell you why not, but apparently you can't have that. So the only thing left is wizards.

Wizards are not matter (good luck telling them that), and they are not laws of physics (I think they would agree). By exhaustion, it is wizards. QED.

It's funny. We know it's dark – you cannot see it (and not only). We know it's clustered in specific locations, which means it's either matter or the first ever matter-like non-matter discovered. We know it possesses the properties that have been thus confirmed by observation, if you pardon this gratuitous non-statement. Yet... Something...
 
It's sure seeming more and more like large gatherings of matter in our universe are actually accompanied by much, much larger gatherings of "dark" matter in some dimension/universe we can't see. That's pretty much the direction the Standard Model is going nowadays, even though cranks hate the idea of matter you can't see.
 
Others have attempted to solve the problem with MOND, Modified Newtonian Dynamics.
Which is of course a worthy course of action, and one which is actually promising. Unlike what you usually do in this kind of threads, which is whinging about astrophysicists laughing at your pet theory and using stuff which is clearly above your level (i.e. math).

Still others have asked the most obvious question: does some other force than gravity control the movement of galaxies? Only establishment physicists would accuse someone of heresy for asking such a question, rather than demonstrating how (perhaps) their alternative hypothesis might be falsified.
Still playing the part of the "bold heterodox freethinker oppressed by the dogmatic status quo", I see. Sorry, it doesn't work. Scientists are a cutthroat bunch, always seeking to destroy and supplant the current theory. There is no "big science" conspiracy to snuff out alternate theories. If anyone could falsify standard cosmology, they would be overjoyed to do such, as they would be raised among the immortals of astrophysics. So far, no such luck.

Again, we have the professor speaking ex cathedra—always ad hominem, but never a scientific comment. It's easy to speak with authority on a sci-fi forum, isn't it?

"Oh, I don't give free lessons. Sign up for a class."

Then how about suggesting some paper or book that might alter my opinion, rather than being snarky all the time?
Being snarky is way more fun, and I can do it for free. Beside, it's pretty clear you haven't yet listened to my first advice to sign up for an actual science class, so why bother with further advice?
 
Still playing the part of the "bold heterodox freethinker oppressed by the dogmatic status quo", I see. Sorry, it doesn't work. Scientists are a cutthroat bunch, always seeking to destroy and supplant the current theory. There is no "big science" conspiracy to snuff out alternate theories. If anyone could falsify standard cosmology, they would be overjoyed to do such, as they would be raised among the immortals of astrophysics. So far, no such luck.

This. I am really just replying because I think this point deserves to be repeated and repeated often.

Well said.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top