4 ms·
Could you elaborate? It’s a set of observations about “something” that behaves like matter[1], and interacts only gravitationally. There are many theories prop
by PartiallyTyped 2y ago
Could you elaborate?
It’s a set of observations about “something” that behaves like matter[1], and interacts only gravitationally. There are many theories proposed but none has any real answers or solutions. The following is taken from Cern[2]:
> Many theories say the dark matter particles would be light enough to be produced at the LHC. If they were created at the LHC, they would escape through the detectors unnoticed. However, they would carry away energy and momentum, so physicists could infer their existence from the amount of energy and momentum “missing” after a collision. Dark matter candidates arise frequently in theories that suggest physics beyond the Standard Model, such as supersymmetry and extra dimensions. One theory suggests the existence of a “Hidden Valley”, a parallel world made of dark matter having very little in common with matter we know. If one of these theories proved to be true, it could help scientists gain a better understanding of the composition of our universe and, in particular, how galaxies hold together.
And thus at least whoever wrote this and the people who approved that publication agree with the notion that it is observations for which no concrete theory exists that explains them.
[1] i used “behaves like matter” in the sense that follows this definition:
> In standard cosmological calculations, "matter" means any constituent of the universe whose energy density scales with the inverse cube of the scale factor, i.e., ρ ∝ a−3 . This is in contrast to "radiation", which scales as the inverse fourth power of the scale factor ρ ∝ a−4 , and a cosmological constant, which does not change with respect to a (ρ ∝ a0). The different scaling factors for matter and radiation are a consequence of radiation redshift: For example, after gradually doubling the diameter of the observable Universe via cosmic expansion of General Relativity, the scale, a, has doubled. The energy of the cosmic microwave background radiation has been halved (because the wavelength of each photon has doubled);[51] the energy of ultra-relativistic particles, such as early-era standard-model neutrinos, is similarly halved.[d] The cosmological constant, as an intrinsic property of space, has a constant energy density regardless of the volume under consideration.[52][e]
In principle, "dark matter" means all components of the universe which are not visible but still obey ρ ∝ a−3 . In practice, the term "dark matter" is often used to mean only the non-baryonic component of dark matter, i.e., excluding "missing baryons". Context will usually indicate which meaning is intended.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
[2] https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter https://home.cern/science/physics/dark-matter
- andrewflnr 2y agoThe way she wants to use "dark matter", MOND is a dark matter theory (explains (some of) the same observations), and no one else uses it that way. "Dark matter" always means some kind of matter, whatever the specifics. Think of it as a family of theories if that helps.
- PartiallyTyped 2y agoI don’t see where we (or she for that matter —hah!) disagree. She agrees that Dark Matter is observations or a problem for something that seems to be matter from our definitions of matter and its interactions. She didn’t claim that MOND is the only theory or answer — in fact she made a video about this exactly, that she believes she failed to adequately argue that DM is what we are discussing because people put too much emphasis on MOND or thought of it as “the only solution to the DM problem”.
- andrewflnr 2y agoAre you actually reading what I'm saying? Can you tell the difference between a claim about whether a theory is true and how it is best categorized?
- PartiallyNerdy 2y agoI claimed dark matter is something we observed and dark matter “theories” are proposed but yet to be proven theories that describe it. She did that too. She didn’t claim Mond is true, neither did I, and as far as I can understand you, neither did you. If you assume me or her did that, then you’ve grossly misunderstood mine or her remarks.
- andrewflnr 2y ago> She didn’t claim Mond is true, neither did I, and as far as I can understand you, neither did you. Well I'm glad we're clear on that. But then why did you feel the need to say > She didn’t claim that MOND is the only theory or answer As if that was a question anyone was asking?