4 ms·

One difference between dark matter and Neptune is that the existence of Neptune is falsifiable. The formulation of dark matter inherently is not. Falsifiable hy

One difference between dark matter and Neptune is that the existence of Neptune is falsifiable. The formulation of dark matter inherently is not. Falsifiable hypotheses is the cornerstone of science.

renewiltord 2y ago
Surely the idea of it being a new kind of matter that interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically yields some testable result? Does it actually yield nothing testable with today’s experimental methods?
- MattPalmer1086 2y ago
  There is a lot of indirect evidence for dark matter. All the direct tests for dark matter particles we have performed have found nothing so far - but since we have no idea what it might be, there's a lot of possibilities to test.
  - uoaei 2y ago
    "Evidence" in heavy scare quotes, considering, again, the tautological nature of the claims around the existence of dark matter. "Something must be here that we are missing" is, frankly, a bullshit hypothesis that need not be entertained unless researchers can actually prove there is some worthiness to the claim. Anything stronger than "maybe our theory is wrong" would suffice!
    - mannykannot 2y ago
      It is tendentious to point out only the difficulties in finding affirmative evidence for dark matter when MOND is doing no better in that regard. If, by that standard, dark matter is bullshit, then, mutatis mutandis, so is every other hypothesis that has been presented so far - but the observations that prompted them in the first place are not going away. It is inconsistent to call just one of them bullshit, and pointless to call them all that.
LegionMammal978 2y ago
Is the existence of a planet so easily falsifiable? It hasn't been so long since the Planet Nine hypothesis started going around, and while we've observationally ruled out a big chunk of the original parameter space, there's still lots of room for a big dark dwarf planet to be floating around out there. It doesn't seem so different from how we've gradually been ruling out the parameter space for dark-matter observations.
- uoaei 2y ago
  Planets that reflect light are easy to detect.
pixl97 2y ago
I mean, dark matter may be discoverable, we just don't know how if it exists. There was time between the irregularities that were noticed in the orbit and the discovery of a new planet.
- uoaei 2y ago
  By that extremely simplistic logic, so is literally any other theory of gravity. This is not an argument, this is a flailing and empty justification.
griffzhowl 2y ago
I'm not sure it's inherently unfalsifiable. There are some specific proposals for dark matter that could be ruled out by experiments, such as right-handed neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino#Sterile_neutrinos_as_dark_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino#Sterile_neutr... Maybe if you're being very broad in definitions then some class of proposals describable as "dark matter" might be unfalsifiable, but to be taken seriously as a scientific proposal I think it should be specific, concrete, and indeed testable, and there are a few of these within the "dark matter" class. Again, we're in the perhaps unsatisfying position of having observations which don't cohere with our current theoretical understanding. What's the solution? It's not easy...
- uoaei 2y ago
  Have you ever encountered the phrase "grasping at straws"? The pursuit of explaining dark matter has gone through many waves of "we just need to invent detectors for this particle that has never been observed" and is littered with the wreckage.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - griffzhowl 2y ago
    Most of the history of physics involves making detectors for things that weren't previously observed... Consider: either most researchers in the field are stupid, for still pursuing an idea which you've apparently ruled out by simple reasoning, or your simple reasoning is fallacious
    - uoaei 2y ago
      Almost: most of the history of physics is based on detectors being sensitive to things people didn't even know existed. Fits and starts based on happy accidents. The teleology of scientific progress is a myth. The most famous example is of course the Galilean moons. Proposing detectors for particles that no one is even sure can exist is like setting up traps for Bigfoot...

One difference between dark matter and Neptune is that the existence of Neptune is falsifiable. The formulation of dark matter inherently is not. Falsifiable hypotheses is the cornerstone of science.

renewiltord 2y ago

Surely the idea of it being a new kind of matter that interacts gravitationally but not electromagnetically yields some testable result? Does it actually yield nothing testable with today’s experimental methods?

MattPalmer1086 2y ago
There is a lot of indirect evidence for dark matter. All the direct tests for dark matter particles we have performed have found nothing so far - but since we have no idea what it might be, there's a lot of possibilities to test.
- uoaei 2y ago
  "Evidence" in heavy scare quotes, considering, again, the tautological nature of the claims around the existence of dark matter. "Something must be here that we are missing" is, frankly, a bullshit hypothesis that need not be entertained unless researchers can actually prove there is some worthiness to the claim. Anything stronger than "maybe our theory is wrong" would suffice!
  - mannykannot 2y ago
    It is tendentious to point out only the difficulties in finding affirmative evidence for dark matter when MOND is doing no better in that regard. If, by that standard, dark matter is bullshit, then, mutatis mutandis, so is every other hypothesis that has been presented so far - but the observations that prompted them in the first place are not going away. It is inconsistent to call just one of them bullshit, and pointless to call them all that.

LegionMammal978 2y ago

Is the existence of a planet so easily falsifiable? It hasn't been so long since the Planet Nine hypothesis started going around, and while we've observationally ruled out a big chunk of the original parameter space, there's still lots of room for a big dark dwarf planet to be floating around out there. It doesn't seem so different from how we've gradually been ruling out the parameter space for dark-matter observations.

uoaei 2y ago
Planets that reflect light are easy to detect.

pixl97 2y ago

I mean, dark matter may be discoverable, we just don't know how if it exists. There was time between the irregularities that were noticed in the orbit and the discovery of a new planet.

uoaei 2y ago
By that extremely simplistic logic, so is literally any other theory of gravity. This is not an argument, this is a flailing and empty justification.

griffzhowl 2y ago

I'm not sure it's inherently unfalsifiable. There are some specific proposals for dark matter that could be ruled out by experiments, such as right-handed neutrinos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino#Sterile_neutrinos_as_dark_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino#Sterile_neutr... Maybe if you're being very broad in definitions then some class of proposals describable as "dark matter" might be unfalsifiable, but to be taken seriously as a scientific proposal I think it should be specific, concrete, and indeed testable, and there are a few of these within the "dark matter" class. Again, we're in the perhaps unsatisfying position of having observations which don't cohere with our current theoretical understanding. What's the solution? It's not easy...

uoaei 2y ago
Have you ever encountered the phrase "grasping at straws"? The pursuit of explaining dark matter has gone through many waves of "we just need to invent detectors for this particle that has never been observed" and is littered with the wreckage.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- griffzhowl 2y ago
  Most of the history of physics involves making detectors for things that weren't previously observed... Consider: either most researchers in the field are stupid, for still pursuing an idea which you've apparently ruled out by simple reasoning, or your simple reasoning is fallacious
  - uoaei 2y ago
    Almost: most of the history of physics is based on detectors being sensitive to things people didn't even know existed. Fits and starts based on happy accidents. The teleology of scientific progress is a myth. The most famous example is of course the Galilean moons. Proposing detectors for particles that no one is even sure can exist is like setting up traps for Bigfoot...