4 ms·

"Dark matter" sounds a lot like "we've run out of ideas so we're going back in the direction of 'the ether' and chariots pulling the sun across the sky and the

"Dark matter" sounds a lot like "we've run out of ideas so we're going back in the direction of 'the ether' and chariots pulling the sun across the sky and the like".

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago
There are a bunch of good reasons to believe there really is matter there that we can't detect aside from its gravity. Here's a talk: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KV9Ht5o_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KV9Ht5o_M>.
smolder 2y ago
Dark matter is an observed discrepancy between measurements. There appears to be a lot of unaccounted-for mass, based on many experimental results. There are several theories as to what that observed discrepancy could be caused by. This is a well-covered topic, anywhere you could hope to learn about astrophysics. What it may sound like to you is not what it is. I'd recommend watching a video from PBS Spacetime if you want to learn about it. They have several.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  The original dark matter turned out to be Neptune. The second dark matter was planet Vulcan (which turned out to not exist) Dark matter has a roughly 50/50 track record.
- jalapenos 2y ago
  Yeah I just feel like they're talking about a problem they've been unable to solve, rather than a solution. Einstein and Planck just solved stuff, with a fraction of the talk and resources. Now Physics seems to be so stagnant it's mostly an exercise in making descriptions for the things it's failing at, as though a problem can somehow match the value of a solution if you give it a cool name and talk about it enough.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > Einstein and Planck just solved stuff, Their ideas, solutions, and problems didn't come about from magic.
  - smolder 2y ago
    > Yeah I just feel like they're talking about a problem they've been unable to solve, rather than a solution. That's right. There is not yet a definitive answer on what dark matter is, just several theories. WIMPs, MOND, primordial black holes... > Now Physics seems to be so stagnant Crapping on modern physics for a lack of progress seems a popular thing amongst us lay people, but despite all the credit you give them (and that they deserve,) I doubt Einstein or Planck would have just intuited the right solution to dark matter.
  - tekla 2y ago
    Shitting on all of science ever is easy. Actually doing it is hard.
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      No not all of science, just science since 1990-ish
      - rcxdude 2y ago
        There's been longer periods of worse stagnation in science.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- petre 2y ago
  Sure. Just like ether. They will sort it out, eventually. https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/ https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-univer... Also no WIMPs were found so far. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2445058-another-blow-for-dark-matter-as-biggest-hunt-yet-finds-nothing/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2445058-another-blow-fo... Now we're doing Mars shots to prove it.
  - smolder 2y ago
    Discussion of your first link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388 I'm not qualified to judge the merit of that theory, really... but my impression is that it doesn't have the explanatory power to be a great candidate.
    - petre 2y ago
      I guess we shall see. There's also MOND.
lordloki 2y ago
Yeah. What if space/time is just noisy?!?
- klyrs 2y ago
  That "noise" would be called dark energy until we understand its source.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mystified5016 2y ago
Galaxies don't behave how they should with our understanding of gravitational mechanics. The only thing that fixes the model is the addition of a lot of mass that we can't see. That would be easy enough to explain away as an incomplete model, except we have observed galaxies which do fit our models. The only way to explain that is if those galaxies are missing this invisible mass. There's no other way to reconcile these observations. How would you square these observations? Under our models of gravity, most galaxies behave as though they contain much more mass than what we observe. However, some behave exactly as Newton would predict. The misbehaving galaxies can be made to fit the model by adding mass in very particular locations, mainly as a halo or shell around the outside. We can show how much mass and where it must be to make galaxies behave as expected. These calculations are the same for most galaxies with dark matter, and galaxies without dark matter require no correction. At this point we have two explanations: either gravity behaves radically differently in different places in the universe, or there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered. We know already that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete, and there are more particles to be discovered. We are also very confident that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and time, and we are very confident that our models of gravity are correct on large scales. The simplest explanation that fits all available data is dark matter. Positing that there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered isn't really a shocking revelation.
- moi2388 2y ago
  With our calculations. Which we know use wrong distance, don’t take spin direction into account, and use newton instead of Einstein. And use things like pi=3=1 and a whole bunch of other simplifications. It’s a miracle it predicts anything at all.
  - mystified5016 2y ago
    Uh, no. None of that explains the fact that the large structure of the galaxies we observe is not possible without extra mass. This has nothing to do with observational error or rounded calculations. The shape of the galaxies and their internal structures are clearly wrong. Besides, this also ignores the fact that we observe galaxies both with and without dark matter. These galaixes have very different structures that cannot arise from the same physics unless we consider dark matter.

"Dark matter" sounds a lot like "we've run out of ideas so we're going back in the direction of 'the ether' and chariots pulling the sun across the sky and the like".

MathMonkeyMan 2y ago

There are a bunch of good reasons to believe there really is matter there that we can't detect aside from its gravity. Here's a talk: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KV9Ht5o_M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8KV9Ht5o_M>.

smolder 2y ago

Dark matter is an observed discrepancy between measurements. There appears to be a lot of unaccounted-for mass, based on many experimental results. There are several theories as to what that observed discrepancy could be caused by. This is a well-covered topic, anywhere you could hope to learn about astrophysics. What it may sound like to you is not what it is. I'd recommend watching a video from PBS Spacetime if you want to learn about it. They have several.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
The original dark matter turned out to be Neptune. The second dark matter was planet Vulcan (which turned out to not exist) Dark matter has a roughly 50/50 track record.
jalapenos 2y ago
Yeah I just feel like they're talking about a problem they've been unable to solve, rather than a solution. Einstein and Planck just solved stuff, with a fraction of the talk and resources. Now Physics seems to be so stagnant it's mostly an exercise in making descriptions for the things it's failing at, as though a problem can somehow match the value of a solution if you give it a cool name and talk about it enough.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > Einstein and Planck just solved stuff, Their ideas, solutions, and problems didn't come about from magic.
- smolder 2y ago
  > Yeah I just feel like they're talking about a problem they've been unable to solve, rather than a solution. That's right. There is not yet a definitive answer on what dark matter is, just several theories. WIMPs, MOND, primordial black holes... > Now Physics seems to be so stagnant Crapping on modern physics for a lack of progress seems a popular thing amongst us lay people, but despite all the credit you give them (and that they deserve,) I doubt Einstein or Planck would have just intuited the right solution to dark matter.
- tekla 2y ago
  Shitting on all of science ever is easy. Actually doing it is hard.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    No not all of science, just science since 1990-ish
    - rcxdude 2y ago
      There's been longer periods of worse stagnation in science.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
petre 2y ago
Sure. Just like ether. They will sort it out, eventually. https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/ https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-univer... Also no WIMPs were found so far. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2445058-another-blow-for-dark-matter-as-biggest-hunt-yet-finds-nothing/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2445058-another-blow-fo... Now we're doing Mars shots to prove it.
- smolder 2y ago
  Discussion of your first link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39726388 I'm not qualified to judge the merit of that theory, really... but my impression is that it doesn't have the explanatory power to be a great candidate.
  - petre 2y ago
    I guess we shall see. There's also MOND.

lordloki 2y ago

Yeah. What if space/time is just noisy?!?

klyrs 2y ago
That "noise" would be called dark energy until we understand its source.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mystified5016 2y ago

Galaxies don't behave how they should with our understanding of gravitational mechanics. The only thing that fixes the model is the addition of a lot of mass that we can't see. That would be easy enough to explain away as an incomplete model, except we have observed galaxies which do fit our models. The only way to explain that is if those galaxies are missing this invisible mass. There's no other way to reconcile these observations. How would you square these observations? Under our models of gravity, most galaxies behave as though they contain much more mass than what we observe. However, some behave exactly as Newton would predict. The misbehaving galaxies can be made to fit the model by adding mass in very particular locations, mainly as a halo or shell around the outside. We can show how much mass and where it must be to make galaxies behave as expected. These calculations are the same for most galaxies with dark matter, and galaxies without dark matter require no correction. At this point we have two explanations: either gravity behaves radically differently in different places in the universe, or there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered. We know already that the standard model of particle physics is incomplete, and there are more particles to be discovered. We are also very confident that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and time, and we are very confident that our models of gravity are correct on large scales. The simplest explanation that fits all available data is dark matter. Positing that there's a new type of massive particle that we haven't discovered isn't really a shocking revelation.

moi2388 2y ago
With our calculations. Which we know use wrong distance, don’t take spin direction into account, and use newton instead of Einstein. And use things like pi=3=1 and a whole bunch of other simplifications. It’s a miracle it predicts anything at all.
- mystified5016 2y ago
  Uh, no. None of that explains the fact that the large structure of the galaxies we observe is not possible without extra mass. This has nothing to do with observational error or rounded calculations. The shape of the galaxies and their internal structures are clearly wrong. Besides, this also ignores the fact that we observe galaxies both with and without dark matter. These galaixes have very different structures that cannot arise from the same physics unless we consider dark matter.