3 ms·

“Dark matter” is a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of matter not visible by other means, and when estimate can be inferred fro

by sesm 3y ago

“Dark matter” is a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of matter not visible by other means, and when estimate can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the mass of that matter. There is no conventionally accepted explanation of dark matter, but great thing about scientific method is that it aims to capture facts and observations without interpretation. So I stand behind “dark matter is obviously correct”. Although I’m pretty sure that WIMPs are BS.

uoaei 3y ago
"Phlogiston"/"ether"/take-your-pick-of-fictitious-forces was a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of an active force not visible by other means, and when estimates can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the existence of that force. Except none of these things are properly said to exist. Dark matter is and always has been "fitting gaps in our current model to observed data". It's retroactive by construction and almost the definition of begging the question. Explanations for material origins as "dark matter" have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a lack of imagination and humility. I could explain fire by positing and observing phlogiston by fitting the residuals of incomplete models to data and I would have just as much "evidence" to stand on as dark matter zealots. It is extremely anti-scientific, indeed an offense to the process of science itself, to 1) ignore the basic facts above to inform the assertion of such baseless claims and 2) to assert those claims so strongly.
- sesm 3y ago
  If several independent observation gave a similar estimation for the mass of “phlogiston” or density of “ether” that would be a very significant phenomena worth studying.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    Phlogiston was a result of multiple independent observations: combustion, rusting, any number of exothermic reactions... it was still wrong. As a bit of an aside, I've noticed a strong correlation with misuse of the singular and plural forms of the word "phenomenon" with non-physicists who want to sound like they know what they're talking about. By your standards, I have a pretty good theory that you're not a physicist. Are you comfortable applying your flavor of analysis and rigor to this observation, too...?
    - sesm 3y ago
      I have MS in Physics but didn’t pursue a PhD and went for job in programming for money. Not sure if it counts or not. English is not my native language and most of my papers were in my native language (except one in Physical Review Letters), so my ‘physics English’ is pretty bad.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      I find this attitude against dark matter frankly baffling...without positing what it is your argument reads somewhat like "well night technically has all these things in it so dark nights don't exist". Screams of tortured tautology, sure there are some "residuals", but unless you are shooting down a particular incorrect assertion there's nothing wrong with lumping a set of observations under some banner. I'm sure we won't call it dark matter at some point, just as we no longer think of atoms as being atomic...nevertheless dark matter serves a purpose in our current state of ignorance, being mad or upset at that to me makes no sense.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - uoaei 3y ago
        You know that meme about deep learning engineers saying "JuSt AdD lAyErS"? This feels like the "matter" version of that. We don't call "ether" a precursor to modern theories, we call it a wrong theory, because there is no substance "ether" which exists. We don't say try to justify their use of the word "ether" because of some tenuous you-know-what-they-meant wink-and-nod, it was just wrong. Newtonian mechanics was at least right in the limit. At least with the atoms example it's a useful abstraction (see: atomic physics, chemistry) but there's no use to positing matter exists if the mechanism is really completely different from invisible matter. We could just as easily call it "the galactic explanatory gap" and maybe name it after someone who did a lot of work on it, maybe "the Zwicky tension" or something, without asserting the nature of the issue so strongly.
        smaudet 3y ago

by sesm 3y ago

uoaei 3y ago

"Phlogiston"/"ether"/take-your-pick-of-fictitious-forces was a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of an active force not visible by other means, and when estimates can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the existence of that force. Except none of these things are properly said to exist. Dark matter is and always has been "fitting gaps in our current model to observed data". It's retroactive by construction and almost the definition of begging the question. Explanations for material origins as "dark matter" have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a lack of imagination and humility. I could explain fire by positing and observing phlogiston by fitting the residuals of incomplete models to data and I would have just as much "evidence" to stand on as dark matter zealots. It is extremely anti-scientific, indeed an offense to the process of science itself, to 1) ignore the basic facts above to inform the assertion of such baseless claims and 2) to assert those claims so strongly.

sesm 3y ago
If several independent observation gave a similar estimation for the mass of “phlogiston” or density of “ether” that would be a very significant phenomena worth studying.
- uoaei 3y ago
  Phlogiston was a result of multiple independent observations: combustion, rusting, any number of exothermic reactions... it was still wrong. As a bit of an aside, I've noticed a strong correlation with misuse of the singular and plural forms of the word "phenomenon" with non-physicists who want to sound like they know what they're talking about. By your standards, I have a pretty good theory that you're not a physicist. Are you comfortable applying your flavor of analysis and rigor to this observation, too...?
  - sesm 3y ago
    I have MS in Physics but didn’t pursue a PhD and went for job in programming for money. Not sure if it counts or not. English is not my native language and most of my papers were in my native language (except one in Physical Review Letters), so my ‘physics English’ is pretty bad.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    I find this attitude against dark matter frankly baffling...without positing what it is your argument reads somewhat like "well night technically has all these things in it so dark nights don't exist". Screams of tortured tautology, sure there are some "residuals", but unless you are shooting down a particular incorrect assertion there's nothing wrong with lumping a set of observations under some banner. I'm sure we won't call it dark matter at some point, just as we no longer think of atoms as being atomic...nevertheless dark matter serves a purpose in our current state of ignorance, being mad or upset at that to me makes no sense.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - uoaei 3y ago
      You know that meme about deep learning engineers saying "JuSt AdD lAyErS"? This feels like the "matter" version of that. We don't call "ether" a precursor to modern theories, we call it a wrong theory, because there is no substance "ether" which exists. We don't say try to justify their use of the word "ether" because of some tenuous you-know-what-they-meant wink-and-nod, it was just wrong. Newtonian mechanics was at least right in the limit. At least with the atoms example it's a useful abstraction (see: atomic physics, chemistry) but there's no use to positing matter exists if the mechanism is really completely different from invisible matter. We could just as easily call it "the galactic explanatory gap" and maybe name it after someone who did a lot of work on it, maybe "the Zwicky tension" or something, without asserting the nature of the issue so strongly.
      - smaudet 3y ago