backtop


Print 16 comment(s) - last by aguilpa1.. on Nov 14 at 4:34 PM

Physicists may need new theories to explain how dark matter works

Sources: CERN, BBC News





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By maugrimtr on 11/13/2012 8:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
Proven theories like Gravity got out of hand? You serious?

The notion is really simple. If you measure all the visible/detectable matter in a Galaxy, you end up being unable to explain that Galaxies gravitational forces and rotation. The only viable solution is to add more matter (i.e. mass) so that our standard models now align correctly with reality. In this case, Gravity and Motion. Two very basic and simple theories which high school physics covers in detail. It's THAT simple which is why the theories themselves are rarely questioned (we can experiment on both exhaustively and those theories unfailingly hold true).

So, where is the missing matter? It must be there. We just can't see it. This is where Dark Matter enters the equation. It's a mumbo-jumbo term for something we don't understand but which we know must exist. It was "invented" in the 1930s by the way! That's when the matter deficit in galaxies was first noticed and written about.

That missing something could be a single form of matter, but it's far more likely to be a whole population of particles we have yet to discover. Since the 1930's we've even discovered some of what the original proportion of required Dark Matter was, e.g. non-emitting bodies (hunks of normal matter which don't emit radiation are effectively invisible to telescopes unless their presence can be inferred indirectly) and neutrinos (teeny tiny particles - countless bazillions of them).

Finally, your whole final paragraph makes no sense. We can observe galaxies, measure them, see their rotations and gravitational effects. Of course, there is evidence that Dark Matter (whatever it actually is) exists. The evidence has existed since 1932 - it's not even remotely controversial.


RE: Dark matter is a poor basis to start a theory on
By Ringold on 11/13/12, Rating: 0
By Stuka on 11/13/2012 5:53:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's just arrogance, though, to pretend we've got some solid grasp on the basics.


Not to be harsh, but I am highly amused by the notion that science had too much BS, so you went into business. ROFL

Business is rife with vastly more BS and arrogance, VASTLY. Stock prices bounce around based on various and innumerable emotions and social disorders. A ball bounces around based on clearly attainable formulas and definable variables. Science can tell you within a minute variance where an asteroid is going to be 10000 years from now. Business can only give you a 50/50 guess if your restaurant will be profitable in 10 years.

Thanks for the laughs. Good luck to ya out there.


By JediJeb on 11/13/2012 10:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heh, well, don't get too ahead of yourself. Yes, we all know gravity exists and can, with a high degree of accuracy until one starts to get to the quantum level or the scales seen in astronomy, predict how it works.


This is along the lines of what I have been thinking lately about this problem. We try to solve the discrepancy by adding enough mass to make the equations balance out, but what if our measurements of mass are more accurate than we think and it is gravity that still eludes us for explanation? Gravity works well on a planet/moon size system and also on a solar system scale, but we see problems when going smaller to the molecular scale or larger to the galactic scale. I haven't studied it enough so I ask, has anyone even tried to propose that gravity varies with scale, or at least much differently than what has been thought in the past? Maybe the effect of gravity over galactic distances differs by more than 1/D^2, maybe it is much more complex than that. Has anyone tried to make a model that holds mass at what is observed and solves the ratio of gravitational attraction to fit what is observed? Then take this equation down to the molecular level and see if it fits there too?

When looking at gravity as a curvature of spacetime, maybe we have not looked into making the equation to model the curve of the spacetime in a complex enough manner. Does spacetime curve in a linear, quadratic, parabolic, exponent or hyperbolic fashion? Or does it morph from one type to another as distance changes?

Would it not make just as much sense to vary gravity to solve the problem as it does to vary mass, especially since we still do not know exactly what gravity is?


By maugrimtr on 11/14/2012 7:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
What is Gravity? It's one of the fundamental forces of the Universe. It can be reliably measured at almost any scale where it conforms to our current theories each and every time. It's less reliable at the quantum scale because Gravity is, for reasons currently unknown, the weakest fundamental force (it's believed that all fundamental forces were once unified at the Big Bang and of roughly equal strength) and is significantly weaker than the forces acting on an atomic scale. Its weakness is mystifying.

That doesn't explain what it is! Scientists are not that arrogant.

We know it exists, how it works, how to measure it, and how to predict its behavior but we can't quite get that same understanding at the quantum scale - actually, that is one of the greatest mysteries in Physics today. So indeed, science does not actually claim to know what Gravity is. To actually think Scientists are running around arrogantly spinning lies about Gravity is itself arrogance...and ignorance of how the Scientific Method works in real life.

If you want real arrogance, pick a religion and have at it. Independent of whether God exists (I'm Catholic), they've been denying reality for centuries in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence. Once it was whether the Earth was the center of the Universe but these days it's over how life evolved across 3+ Billion years on planet in a 14+ Billion year old Universe.


By tng on 11/14/2012 10:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We know it exists, how it works, how to measure it, and how to predict its behavior but we can't quite get that same understanding at the quantum scale - actually, that is one of the greatest mysteries in Physics today.
Exactly!

quote:
To actually think Scientists are running around arrogantly spinning lies about Gravity is itself arrogance...and ignorance of how the Scientific Method works in real life.
Yet many people here on these pages will rate you down for saying that there may be no such thing as Dark Matter, it may still be a function of gravity that is not understood at a larger scale.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki