3 ms·
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 neutr
by 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 agoHave 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 agoMost 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 agoAlmost: 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...