4 ms·
Same feelings here. I genuinely do not understand how adding unobservable objects would be the right approach instead of just fixing the equations.
by d3ckard 10y ago
Same feelings here. I genuinely do not understand how adding unobservable objects would be the right approach instead of just fixing the equations.
- m1el 10y agoYou don't comprehend the magnitude of "just fixing the equations". As other commenters said, physics has a history of "adding unobservable objects", and then finding a way to observe them.
- mitchty 10y agoWe already observe it via its gravitational effects on galaxies. Additionally, good luck getting "fixed equations" to agree with the reams of data.
- jack9 10y agoIsn't that what MOND is doing, to some degree?
- mitchty 10y agoFrom what I have looked into, it breaks down with observed things on the fringes, aka black holes and supercluster type stuff. This is the "silver bullet" if you will for a lot of these theories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster It would be great if "just" modifying the equations works. But it has an uphill climb against observed data.
- cozzyd 10y agoAdding a particle is "just" fixing another equation (the standard model Lagrangian).
- misnome 10y agoBecause every other observation for hundreds of years is explained perfectly by "The equations", so you need to "Fix" them in a way that doesn't change any of the existing answers. And yes, as Cozzyd points out, matter is actually part of these equations. The simplest changes involve adding an extra term to the equation with such-and-such properties that disappear in the normal cases - that is dark matter.