4 ms·

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

by 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
      Ok, I sort of get your objection, but "if the mechanism is really completely different from invisible matter", that doesn't seem to be true? I'm not a physicist, but the explanation I'd heard was that something appears to have mass (due to patterns of gravitational objects seen through telescopes), but we can't see it. So to be completely fair, we don't see any matter, we do see unexplained gravitational phenomena, which is optically invisible, but we do see something. Possibly, our model of gravitation is just completely wrong, and actually there are different forces which modulate the force of gravity. Of the two, it seems dark matter is less controversial (matter that doesn't seem to reflect light) than positing new fundamental forces, as one involves a known set of theories (maybe its something like antimatter, or an alternative configuration of particles to the standard atomic ones at a quantum or particle physics level). I don't think ignoring it as a rounding error is a reasonable approach, unless you have some strong sources arguing that the physicists equipment is just bad (source, please), at least that's my impression.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Again, I can make anything "appear" to have invisible mass if I ignore the appropriate theories and fit mass in where it "ought to be" to recover the observed dynamics. Theories besides dark matter don't posit new fundamental forces, they posit that our understanding of gravity is incomplete and only applies in the limit of high-mass-density spacetime regions. This kind of elaboration of our physical theories has significant precedent: Newtonian mechanics is recovered when considering general relativity in the limit of distance scales much smaller than light-seconds and time scales much longer than infinitesimal time. It could be as well that our current models are only applicable in the limit of regions of dense mass. When things thin out (say, near the edges of galaxies) the transition to a modified dynamics appears to have significant explanatory power (since the limit no longer applies) with the added benefit that there's actually a model that can be validated or falsified.

by 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
    Ok, I sort of get your objection, but "if the mechanism is really completely different from invisible matter", that doesn't seem to be true? I'm not a physicist, but the explanation I'd heard was that something appears to have mass (due to patterns of gravitational objects seen through telescopes), but we can't see it. So to be completely fair, we don't see any matter, we do see unexplained gravitational phenomena, which is optically invisible, but we do see something. Possibly, our model of gravitation is just completely wrong, and actually there are different forces which modulate the force of gravity. Of the two, it seems dark matter is less controversial (matter that doesn't seem to reflect light) than positing new fundamental forces, as one involves a known set of theories (maybe its something like antimatter, or an alternative configuration of particles to the standard atomic ones at a quantum or particle physics level). I don't think ignoring it as a rounding error is a reasonable approach, unless you have some strong sources arguing that the physicists equipment is just bad (source, please), at least that's my impression.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Again, I can make anything "appear" to have invisible mass if I ignore the appropriate theories and fit mass in where it "ought to be" to recover the observed dynamics. Theories besides dark matter don't posit new fundamental forces, they posit that our understanding of gravity is incomplete and only applies in the limit of high-mass-density spacetime regions. This kind of elaboration of our physical theories has significant precedent: Newtonian mechanics is recovered when considering general relativity in the limit of distance scales much smaller than light-seconds and time scales much longer than infinitesimal time. It could be as well that our current models are only applicable in the limit of regions of dense mass. When things thin out (say, near the edges of galaxies) the transition to a modified dynamics appears to have significant explanatory power (since the limit no longer applies) with the added benefit that there's actually a model that can be validated or falsified.