3 ms·

Answer: No. If another field exists its effects are so vanishingly minuscule and force carriers so rare we can ignore it because there are no observational con

Answer: No. If another field exists its effects are so vanishingly minuscule and force carriers so rare we can ignore it because there are no observational consequences. Remember we discovered an extremely weak field that has no obvious observational consequences (the weak force and the Z/W bosons) because there were gaps in the then standard model that begged for an explanation. Besides the obvious gravity problem the standard model doesn't have many gaps left into which one can squeeze a new force and its field/carrier particles.

russdill 3y ago
It's fairly obvious that we are missing at least one field (dark matter), possibly two or more (dark energy). There isn't any reason that dark matter particles could not weakly interact via some unknown force. Such a force would as you say, be pretty much impossible to detect and we can likely ignore it. That's different than it not existing.
- uoaei 3y ago
  It's not at all obvious that either of those things are fields in the QFT sense, especially since MOND and particularly emergent gravity models still match observational data so well and that dark matter and dark energy are (in the case of the latter, literally admitted by Einstein himself to be) paraphrased as 'data minus existing models equals something we're still trying to explain'.
  - russdill 3y ago
    Modern MOND theories that attempt to account for modern observations do so by creating additional fields. I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty darn certain Einstein never offered an option on the accelerating expansion of the universe, nor on the evidence we have for dark matter such as the CMB map.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Modern MOND theories modify the gravitational force at their simplest, they do not presuppose a quantum origin of that force. Ergo they're not creating new fields. More exotic MOND theories (like emergent gravity, mentioned above) reframe gravity as an entropic, not fundamental, force, akin to the "force" that "pushes" heat from hotter areas to colder areas. Again, not a quantum origin. It's still possible emergent gravity requires some kind of quantum component. Again, the "evidence" we have for "dark matter" is just inserting dark matter post-hoc to explain some mysterious misalignment between theory and data. That's all it is. Mechanisms for explaining that discrepancy are called "dark matter" because people aren't imaginative enough to entertain any other possibilities besides "it's definitely another particle, bro". I'm not saying MOND is more correct, we can't say that at this time, what I am saying is the confidence and zealotry of dark matter advocates is severely misplaced and amateurs do not have a grasp on what exactly is being claimed to notice that there's nothing actually being explained, no theory per se whatsoever, when words like "dark matter" are bandied about, and so feign the confidence that the dark matter die-hards themselves project. As for Einstein: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
      - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
        "Dark Matter" is a name for the observations of the discrepancy. It's not a theory in and of itself. Lots of the theories trying to explain the observed discrepancy (dark matter) include that in their name (like the λCDM theory), others (like MOND) don't. They're all trying to explain the same observations though, so they're all theories of "dark matter".
        uoaei 3y ago
        I don't think it's helpful to lump in MOND under the "dark matter" umbrella, and no one else aside from you seems to do that. It's specifically not about matter nor energy (i.e., QFT) in every formulation that's out there. Further, MOND does try to explain the discrepancy with articulated theories, just in ways that don't conform to the assumed supremacy of QFT-based explanations.

russdill 3y ago

It's fairly obvious that we are missing at least one field (dark matter), possibly two or more (dark energy). There isn't any reason that dark matter particles could not weakly interact via some unknown force. Such a force would as you say, be pretty much impossible to detect and we can likely ignore it. That's different than it not existing.

uoaei 3y ago
It's not at all obvious that either of those things are fields in the QFT sense, especially since MOND and particularly emergent gravity models still match observational data so well and that dark matter and dark energy are (in the case of the latter, literally admitted by Einstein himself to be) paraphrased as 'data minus existing models equals something we're still trying to explain'.
- russdill 3y ago
  Modern MOND theories that attempt to account for modern observations do so by creating additional fields. I'm not 100%, but I'm pretty darn certain Einstein never offered an option on the accelerating expansion of the universe, nor on the evidence we have for dark matter such as the CMB map.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Modern MOND theories modify the gravitational force at their simplest, they do not presuppose a quantum origin of that force. Ergo they're not creating new fields. More exotic MOND theories (like emergent gravity, mentioned above) reframe gravity as an entropic, not fundamental, force, akin to the "force" that "pushes" heat from hotter areas to colder areas. Again, not a quantum origin. It's still possible emergent gravity requires some kind of quantum component. Again, the "evidence" we have for "dark matter" is just inserting dark matter post-hoc to explain some mysterious misalignment between theory and data. That's all it is. Mechanisms for explaining that discrepancy are called "dark matter" because people aren't imaginative enough to entertain any other possibilities besides "it's definitely another particle, bro". I'm not saying MOND is more correct, we can't say that at this time, what I am saying is the confidence and zealotry of dark matter advocates is severely misplaced and amateurs do not have a grasp on what exactly is being claimed to notice that there's nothing actually being explained, no theory per se whatsoever, when words like "dark matter" are bandied about, and so feign the confidence that the dark matter die-hards themselves project. As for Einstein: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
    - SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
      "Dark Matter" is a name for the observations of the discrepancy. It's not a theory in and of itself. Lots of the theories trying to explain the observed discrepancy (dark matter) include that in their name (like the λCDM theory), others (like MOND) don't. They're all trying to explain the same observations though, so they're all theories of "dark matter".
      - uoaei 3y ago
        I don't think it's helpful to lump in MOND under the "dark matter" umbrella, and no one else aside from you seems to do that. It's specifically not about matter nor energy (i.e., QFT) in every formulation that's out there. Further, MOND does try to explain the discrepancy with articulated theories, just in ways that don't conform to the assumed supremacy of QFT-based explanations.