3 ms·

What annoys many was the pretense of a theory. At some point in the history of physics we stopped calling open problems, puzzles and (yet) unresolved paradoxes

What annoys many was the pretense of a theory. At some point in the history of physics we stopped calling open problems, puzzles and (yet) unresolved paradoxes as what different but similarly unexplained phenomena were called in the past and pretended we resolved them. It's simply unnecessary to pretend its a theory, it is possible to name things without pretending they are theories.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> pretended we resolved them Who did? Dark matter and energy are famously-unsolved problems in physics.
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  There is an overton window of acceptable dark matter theories which really should be a lot bigger. Many of the current big frameworks agree on too many details that essentially just arise from curve fitting. And no, I am not referring to the various MOND theories. They still belong on the same edge of that overton window that it currently occupies.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > an overton window of acceptable dark matter theories which really should be a lot bigger Overton windows pertain to mainstream opinions [1]. Particle physics shouldn’t be subject to mainstream opinion. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
    - geysersam 2y ago
      Something can still be mainstream in the particle physics community
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        Who in the particle physics community claims dark matter or energy are solved?
        DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        You are taking this too literally. I’m not GP, but I can guarantee they were not claiming any position like what you’re insinuating.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > You are taking this too literally They’re calling out a “the pretense of a theory” of dark matter that we “pretended we resolved” unlike the “different but similarly unexplained phenomena were called in the past.” Where do you see the figurative gap? In reality, we have General Relativity and the Standard Model. Both theories which have defied falsification to the limits of our instruments. Their unification, unfortunately, demands certain discrepancies be resolved. Dark matter and dark energy being possible solutions to those discrepancies. There is no “theory” of dark matter or dark energy, just a compendium of hypotheses. OP is wrong. Literally, not figuratively.
        DoctorOetker 2y ago
        In the past, unresolved questions were aptly named, like "UV-catastrophe" etc. as opposed to "dark energy" etc. One clearly indicates scientists being baffled (a catastrophic conclusion), versus a linguistically tangible substance "dark energy", unnecessarily specific in quantity (energy vs position vs momentum vs ...). For unexplained phenomena, doesn't it sound alarmingly specific? Wouldn't specific issues getting their own names not have been more desirable? like "anomalous rotation curves", ...
  - fartsucker69 2y ago
    well the correct theory will have to explain what we actually observe, which is going to limit the nature of what these theories can be. I'm not sure if you have an example of something that should be accepted when it's currently not, but usually that's the case when something is clearly broken with regards to basic facts we already know to be true.
    - pclmulqdq 2y ago
      My problem with how the physics community is having this discussion is actually the converse of what you are suggesting: None of the existing theories explain every observation we have, and yet we are sticking to the same general frameworks that don't work.
- scotty79 2y ago
  Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something. While the reality is that equation of cosmological model is just wrong but could potentially be made right by arbitrarily adding, for no reason at all, a term that has unit of energy (density?). So what's unsolved is not really a problem of dark energy, but a problem of not having correct equation that models prior cosmological observations. You could add a factor to any wrong equation and call it "dark flexum" and fine-tune it as new observations come in. New observations point to possibility that dark energy might not be fixed in time nor isotropic in space. It strongly reeks of epicycles.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something There is an existence of something. Unknown variables aren’t improperly named. The solution to dark energy may be matter, it may be modified gravity (almost certainly not), it might be time bubbles à la timescape (which requires re-figuring the Big Bang, possibly less parsimonious than lambda CDM). There are terribly-named conventions in science. Dark matter is only one to the degree of explaining confident popular ignorance.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      My bet is on timescape as it doesn't use any unknown magic. Just requires applying GR correctly instead of in the simplest conceivable way that CDM does. A lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic instead of just temporary state of high temperature (kinetic energy) and density with its own internal structure.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic Sure, but now you’ve created a magic variable the literal size of the universe. Why do we have the timescape that we do?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> pretended we resolved them Who did? Dark matter and energy are famously-unsolved problems in physics.

pclmulqdq 2y ago
There is an overton window of acceptable dark matter theories which really should be a lot bigger. Many of the current big frameworks agree on too many details that essentially just arise from curve fitting. And no, I am not referring to the various MOND theories. They still belong on the same edge of that overton window that it currently occupies.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > an overton window of acceptable dark matter theories which really should be a lot bigger Overton windows pertain to mainstream opinions [1]. Particle physics shouldn’t be subject to mainstream opinion. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window
  - geysersam 2y ago
    Something can still be mainstream in the particle physics community
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Who in the particle physics community claims dark matter or energy are solved?
      - DiggyJohnson 2y ago
        You are taking this too literally. I’m not GP, but I can guarantee they were not claiming any position like what you’re insinuating.
        JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > You are taking this too literally They’re calling out a “the pretense of a theory” of dark matter that we “pretended we resolved” unlike the “different but similarly unexplained phenomena were called in the past.” Where do you see the figurative gap? In reality, we have General Relativity and the Standard Model. Both theories which have defied falsification to the limits of our instruments. Their unification, unfortunately, demands certain discrepancies be resolved. Dark matter and dark energy being possible solutions to those discrepancies. There is no “theory” of dark matter or dark energy, just a compendium of hypotheses. OP is wrong. Literally, not figuratively.
        DoctorOetker 2y ago
        In the past, unresolved questions were aptly named, like "UV-catastrophe" etc. as opposed to "dark energy" etc. One clearly indicates scientists being baffled (a catastrophic conclusion), versus a linguistically tangible substance "dark energy", unnecessarily specific in quantity (energy vs position vs momentum vs ...). For unexplained phenomena, doesn't it sound alarmingly specific? Wouldn't specific issues getting their own names not have been more desirable? like "anomalous rotation curves", ...
- fartsucker69 2y ago
  well the correct theory will have to explain what we actually observe, which is going to limit the nature of what these theories can be. I'm not sure if you have an example of something that should be accepted when it's currently not, but usually that's the case when something is clearly broken with regards to basic facts we already know to be true.
  - pclmulqdq 2y ago
    My problem with how the physics community is having this discussion is actually the converse of what you are suggesting: None of the existing theories explain every observation we have, and yet we are sticking to the same general frameworks that don't work.
scotty79 2y ago
Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something. While the reality is that equation of cosmological model is just wrong but could potentially be made right by arbitrarily adding, for no reason at all, a term that has unit of energy (density?). So what's unsolved is not really a problem of dark energy, but a problem of not having correct equation that models prior cosmological observations. You could add a factor to any wrong equation and call it "dark flexum" and fine-tune it as new observations come in. New observations point to possibility that dark energy might not be fixed in time nor isotropic in space. It strongly reeks of epicycles.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Calling something dark energy is giving impression of claiming existence of something There is an existence of something. Unknown variables aren’t improperly named. The solution to dark energy may be matter, it may be modified gravity (almost certainly not), it might be time bubbles à la timescape (which requires re-figuring the Big Bang, possibly less parsimonious than lambda CDM). There are terribly-named conventions in science. Dark matter is only one to the degree of explaining confident popular ignorance.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    My bet is on timescape as it doesn't use any unknown magic. Just requires applying GR correctly instead of in the simplest conceivable way that CDM does. A lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic instead of just temporary state of high temperature (kinetic energy) and density with its own internal structure.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > lot of things might clear up once you remove the assumption that Big Bang was true begining of matter, energy and time, with everything isotropic Sure, but now you’ve created a magic variable the literal size of the universe. Why do we have the timescape that we do?