7 ms·

> For their part, the (large majority) who think the Dark Matter is out there and we just have to measure harder are serenely confident. For the folks who have

> For their part, the (large majority) who think the Dark Matter is out there and we just have to measure harder are serenely confident. For the folks who have spent their entire careers searching for dark matter, what would it take to convince them that dark matter may not exist? The search for ether ended with Michelson-Morley experiment. Is there no way of falsifying dark matter claims?

andreareina 4y ago
My understanding is that it's still the most parsimonious theory that explains everything, including (especially?) the CMB power spectra[1]. Even TeVeS still requires some dark matter to fit all the phenomena, just not as much as LCDM. [1] https://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/research/cosmic-microwave-background-and-the-early-universe/CMB-cosmological-parameters https://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/research/cosmic-microwave-backgro...
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Linked in TFA: https://tritonstation.com/2022/04/29/when-you-have-eliminated-the-impossible/ https://tritonstation.com/2022/04/29/when-you-have-eliminate...
tigerlily 4y ago
> Is there no way of falsifying dark matter claims? Why, yes there is: http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/wager.html http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/wager.html Euclid is scheduled to launch next year.
teamonkey 4y ago
> what would it take to convince them that dark matter may not exist? Just a better alternative that fits all the evidence. The problem is not scientists stubbornly hanging on to their pet theories and refusing to accept alternatives (though obviously they do have their pet theories), it's just a downright weird area of science. Dark Matter is preposterous and unintuitive. It affects gravity just like a lot of mass, but it's totally invisible. We have no idea what it is or how it formed, but the majority of mass in the universe is somehow dark matter! Obviously there must be a simpler, more elegant explanation. And yet, through numerous experiments, other theories get ruled out while dark matter survives.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Does its distribution show an corelation with visible objects?
  - teamonkey 4y ago
    No, as mentioned in another reply there are galaxies that appear to be free of dark matter.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  > Just a better alternative that fits all the evidence. This is the problem. There is a real possibility that what is "really" going on only fits some of the evidence and there are other phenomena at play. The explanatory power of "unseeable distribution of arbitrary matter" is dangerously high.
  - teamonkey 4y ago
    There's no danger it will be left at a vague "unseeable distribution of arbitrary matter", if that's what you mean. Every astrophysicist studying in the field of dark matter wants to know exactly what it is, even if it's an artefact caused by multiple different unknowns.
    - throwawaymaths 4y ago
      This is a highly idealistic and naive caricature of scientists (I used to be one)
- Hayvok 4y ago
  > but the majority of mass in the universe is somehow dark matter! Forgive me, but shouldn’t it be, “the majority of gravity” we observe? > through numerous experiments, other theories get ruled out while dark matter survives We keep experimentally ruling out exotic modifications to gravity and relativity that don’t require extra mass, and dark matter theory continues because it makes the math work while it continues to fail experiment after experiment. We’re like a kid in school being asked to show their work on a math problem, knowing the answer, and tacking “+3” at the end because it came up short. The gravity we get at the end is correct (we can see it) but we have no idea where that “3” actually comes from.
HardlyCurious 4y ago
Imagine how crushing it would be to, after decades of effort, learn that it was all for nothing.
- blinding-streak 4y ago
  Disappointing, yes. Except this is the norm in science if we look back historically. Theories that were accepted for hundreds of years are replaced with more accurate representations through the scientific method. For example, planetary epicycles.
  - aerostable_slug 4y ago
    Agreed, but I think the more apt comparison is phlogiston.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > Except this is the norm in science if we look back historically. Science, for better or worse, is paradigmatic. The paradigm is strong and drives careers. Only when the paradigm is toppled and a new paradigm established does Science begin to advance in what will be ultimately seen historically as a leap or bound, metaphorically of course.

andreareina 4y ago

My understanding is that it's still the most parsimonious theory that explains everything, including (especially?) the CMB power spectra[1]. Even TeVeS still requires some dark matter to fit all the phenomena, just not as much as LCDM. [1] https://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/research/cosmic-microwave-background-and-the-early-universe/CMB-cosmological-parameters https://www.kicc.cam.ac.uk/research/cosmic-microwave-backgro...

throwawaymaths 4y ago
Linked in TFA: https://tritonstation.com/2022/04/29/when-you-have-eliminated-the-impossible/ https://tritonstation.com/2022/04/29/when-you-have-eliminate...

tigerlily 4y ago

> Is there no way of falsifying dark matter claims? Why, yes there is: http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/wager.html http://www2.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/~dlw24/universe/wager.html Euclid is scheduled to launch next year.

teamonkey 4y ago

> what would it take to convince them that dark matter may not exist? Just a better alternative that fits all the evidence. The problem is not scientists stubbornly hanging on to their pet theories and refusing to accept alternatives (though obviously they do have their pet theories), it's just a downright weird area of science. Dark Matter is preposterous and unintuitive. It affects gravity just like a lot of mass, but it's totally invisible. We have no idea what it is or how it formed, but the majority of mass in the universe is somehow dark matter! Obviously there must be a simpler, more elegant explanation. And yet, through numerous experiments, other theories get ruled out while dark matter survives.

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Does its distribution show an corelation with visible objects?
- teamonkey 4y ago
  No, as mentioned in another reply there are galaxies that appear to be free of dark matter.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
> Just a better alternative that fits all the evidence. This is the problem. There is a real possibility that what is "really" going on only fits some of the evidence and there are other phenomena at play. The explanatory power of "unseeable distribution of arbitrary matter" is dangerously high.
- teamonkey 4y ago
  There's no danger it will be left at a vague "unseeable distribution of arbitrary matter", if that's what you mean. Every astrophysicist studying in the field of dark matter wants to know exactly what it is, even if it's an artefact caused by multiple different unknowns.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    This is a highly idealistic and naive caricature of scientists (I used to be one)
Hayvok 4y ago
> but the majority of mass in the universe is somehow dark matter! Forgive me, but shouldn’t it be, “the majority of gravity” we observe? > through numerous experiments, other theories get ruled out while dark matter survives We keep experimentally ruling out exotic modifications to gravity and relativity that don’t require extra mass, and dark matter theory continues because it makes the math work while it continues to fail experiment after experiment. We’re like a kid in school being asked to show their work on a math problem, knowing the answer, and tacking “+3” at the end because it came up short. The gravity we get at the end is correct (we can see it) but we have no idea where that “3” actually comes from.

HardlyCurious 4y ago

Imagine how crushing it would be to, after decades of effort, learn that it was all for nothing.

blinding-streak 4y ago
Disappointing, yes. Except this is the norm in science if we look back historically. Theories that were accepted for hundreds of years are replaced with more accurate representations through the scientific method. For example, planetary epicycles.
- aerostable_slug 4y ago
  Agreed, but I think the more apt comparison is phlogiston.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Except this is the norm in science if we look back historically. Science, for better or worse, is paradigmatic. The paradigm is strong and drives careers. Only when the paradigm is toppled and a new paradigm established does Science begin to advance in what will be ultimately seen historically as a leap or bound, metaphorically of course.