4 ms·

>Come up with a theory with testable set of predictions that isn’t just a patchwork of models glued together to explain data and then you’ll convince people. T

>Come up with a theory with testable set of predictions that isn’t just a patchwork of models glued together to explain data and then you’ll convince people. The dark matter crowd was able to convince quite a few people without hurdling such a high bar, not to mention stuff like string-theory..

starwind 4y ago
Our current understanding of gravitational lensing and the speed of galaxy rotations would both suggest that we're between 80-90% of the mass in the universe. It's important to note the missing mass calculated via lensing and the missing mass calculated via the speed of galatic rotations matches pretty well. Whatever this stuff is, we don't see it directly, and we don't know what it is. Dark matter is the result of observations...of something
pdonis 4y ago
> The dark matter crowd was able to convince quite a few people without hurdling such a high bar I don't know where you're getting this from. Dark matter models make lots of testable predictions, and they currently match the overall data set (which includes many different observations, not just the galaxy rotation curves that are most often mentioned) better than any other models. > not to mention stuff like string-theory Here I agree: string theory has not made a single testable prediction.
- starwind 4y ago
  Not true, string theory made numerous testable predictions of what particles LHC should detect at different energy levels. AFAIK none of the predictions unique to string theory and it's different branches have panned out. At this point I see string theory as more of a mathematical framework than physics
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > string theory made numerous testable predictions of what particles LHC should detect at different energy levels No, it didn't. Particular supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model made testable predictions of what particles the LHC should detect at different energy levels, none of which have panned out. String theorists like to take credit for those predictions (or at least they did until the predictions became notorious for their wrongness) because they claim that string theory is what justifies those particular supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model. That doesn't mean we should let them get away with it.

starwind 4y ago

Our current understanding of gravitational lensing and the speed of galaxy rotations would both suggest that we're between 80-90% of the mass in the universe. It's important to note the missing mass calculated via lensing and the missing mass calculated via the speed of galatic rotations matches pretty well. Whatever this stuff is, we don't see it directly, and we don't know what it is. Dark matter is the result of observations...of something

pdonis 4y ago

> The dark matter crowd was able to convince quite a few people without hurdling such a high bar I don't know where you're getting this from. Dark matter models make lots of testable predictions, and they currently match the overall data set (which includes many different observations, not just the galaxy rotation curves that are most often mentioned) better than any other models. > not to mention stuff like string-theory Here I agree: string theory has not made a single testable prediction.

starwind 4y ago
Not true, string theory made numerous testable predictions of what particles LHC should detect at different energy levels. AFAIK none of the predictions unique to string theory and it's different branches have panned out. At this point I see string theory as more of a mathematical framework than physics
- pdonis 4y ago
  > string theory made numerous testable predictions of what particles LHC should detect at different energy levels No, it didn't. Particular supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model made testable predictions of what particles the LHC should detect at different energy levels, none of which have panned out. String theorists like to take credit for those predictions (or at least they did until the predictions became notorious for their wrongness) because they claim that string theory is what justifies those particular supersymmetric extensions to the Standard Model. That doesn't mean we should let them get away with it.