5 ms·

There seems to me to be a real cottage industry in proposing alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I wonder why that might be. Why isn't there as much

There seems to me to be a real cottage industry in proposing alternatives to Dark Matter and Dark Energy. I wonder why that might be. Why isn't there as much interest in alternatives to, say, Plate Tectonics or the Germ Theory?

aaomidi 1y ago
Because those are coherent theories, that don’t have massive gaps in them like dark matter.
- dventimi 1y ago
  What massive gaps?
  - DFHippie 1y ago
    I am not a physicist, buy maybe the nature of dark matter and dark energy? What are their properties aside from their effect on the large scale structure of the universe?
    - dventimi 1y ago
      FWIW (which is not much), I was an astrophysicist whose research was Dark Energy, though I arrogate to myself no authority on this topic as frankly a lot of knowledge I used to possess on the topic has been replaced by knowledge of tedious programming APIs (meh...it's a living). My sense was that, perhaps owning to their colorful (colorless?) names, and because they diffused into popular culture more than other equally-important theories in other fields, Dark Matter and Dark Energy were presented to and apprehended by laypeople as "exotic". This invited speculation about these theories and even an urge to overturn them, especially where "exotic" was equated with "tendentious." But, by my lights these theories aren't very exotic. Dark Matter especially seems to me to be very consistent with the history of particle physics. Rutherford first proposed the existence of the neutron in 1920, but it wasn't observed directly until 1932. Pauli first proposed the existence of the neutrino in 1930, but it wasn't observed directly until 1956. Both are forms of "dark matter" and neutrinos were once a candidate for explaining flat rotation curves in galaxies and the "missing mass problem", until they were later excluded by observations of large scale structure. Dark Matter interacts with gravity strongly enough that its effects on astronomical and cosmological scales are pronounced, but it interacts with the other forces weakly enough that so far it hasn't been observed directly. So what? "the nature of dark matter and dark energy" I don't know anything about "the nature" of things. That sounds very philosophical to me. "What are [the properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy] aside from their effect on the large scale structure of the universe?" I don't know. I also don't know why you're excluding (in the case of Dark Matter) its gravimetric effect on the large scale structure of the Universe. That seems like a pretty important property to me.
      - dventimi 1y ago
        correction: "OWING to their colorful...names" not "owning to their colorful...names"
      - recursivecaveat 1y ago
        There is an alternate timeline where dark matter receives an extremely boring name like "inferred low luminosity particulate" and 100,000 very repetitive internet conversations never happen.
        dventimi 1y ago
        How do I get out of this chickensh*t outfit and onto that other timeline?
hwillis 1y ago
There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Because it's complicated astrophysics and largely unknown it is normal to put dark matter and energy theories into a non-fantastical category. The very large majority of physicists think MOND and similar are defunct theories. Dark matter and energy are very different, separate phenomena that just share a name. It does not make sense for them to have a shared explanation. There are also so, so many ways we observe dark matter that make it clear there is matter involved. Every new observation has completely overturned the predictions of every MOND or modified gravity theory, and they just come back with a totally different explanation to fit the new data.
- dventimi 1y ago
  "There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc." That's a fair point. It's just my perception that those things don't tend to be taken very seriously by people commenting on HN.
- Validark 1y ago
  > Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Ironically, you are positing a grand unifying theory here by stating that detractors from mainstream opinions just want simpler answers. But isn't it simpler to just go with the mainstream opinion and go with the flow? Alternative models of the earth are typically rooted in Biblical or ancient belief systems. Any specific argument based on physics come long after a person's acceptance of, e.g., the Bible. And I can't even imagine how you might think anti-vax beliefs are simpler so I can't speak to that. Homeopathy sounds pretty dumb to me, sure, but also there are tons of reasons to distrust the medical system in the USA, I'd be surprised if anyone seriously argued against that. I can understand why people suspicious of America's medical culture of prescribing 10 medications to someone instead of lifestyle changes might see a bottle of sugar pills at the store labeled with "natural remedy" and think it could be a better alternative. > Every new observation has completely overturned the predictions of every MOND or modified gravity theory, and they just come back with a totally different explanation to fit the new data. That's how science works. Scientists are not prophets, they do not have the luxury of starting with all the answers. It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest. I'm guess I'm just a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic, but when I hear someone suggest an alternative theory I don't immediately feel the need to group them with everything I think is wrong with the world. Instead I think, "That's really cool they came up with a different model of the universe. I wonder how they account for everything we observe and how it will be refined over time and whether it will predict new discoveries." Even if your current theory never gets overturned, I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time. Just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, and it doesn't mean there's a 100% certainty that you got it right.

aaomidi 1y ago

Because those are coherent theories, that don’t have massive gaps in them like dark matter.

dventimi 1y ago
What massive gaps?
- DFHippie 1y ago
  I am not a physicist, buy maybe the nature of dark matter and dark energy? What are their properties aside from their effect on the large scale structure of the universe?
  - dventimi 1y ago
    FWIW (which is not much), I was an astrophysicist whose research was Dark Energy, though I arrogate to myself no authority on this topic as frankly a lot of knowledge I used to possess on the topic has been replaced by knowledge of tedious programming APIs (meh...it's a living). My sense was that, perhaps owning to their colorful (colorless?) names, and because they diffused into popular culture more than other equally-important theories in other fields, Dark Matter and Dark Energy were presented to and apprehended by laypeople as "exotic". This invited speculation about these theories and even an urge to overturn them, especially where "exotic" was equated with "tendentious." But, by my lights these theories aren't very exotic. Dark Matter especially seems to me to be very consistent with the history of particle physics. Rutherford first proposed the existence of the neutron in 1920, but it wasn't observed directly until 1932. Pauli first proposed the existence of the neutrino in 1930, but it wasn't observed directly until 1956. Both are forms of "dark matter" and neutrinos were once a candidate for explaining flat rotation curves in galaxies and the "missing mass problem", until they were later excluded by observations of large scale structure. Dark Matter interacts with gravity strongly enough that its effects on astronomical and cosmological scales are pronounced, but it interacts with the other forces weakly enough that so far it hasn't been observed directly. So what? "the nature of dark matter and dark energy" I don't know anything about "the nature" of things. That sounds very philosophical to me. "What are [the properties of Dark Matter and Dark Energy] aside from their effect on the large scale structure of the universe?" I don't know. I also don't know why you're excluding (in the case of Dark Matter) its gravimetric effect on the large scale structure of the Universe. That seems like a pretty important property to me.
    - dventimi 1y ago
      correction: "OWING to their colorful...names" not "owning to their colorful...names"
    - recursivecaveat 1y ago
      There is an alternate timeline where dark matter receives an extremely boring name like "inferred low luminosity particulate" and 100,000 very repetitive internet conversations never happen.
      - dventimi 1y ago
        How do I get out of this chickensh*t outfit and onto that other timeline?

hwillis 1y ago

There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Because it's complicated astrophysics and largely unknown it is normal to put dark matter and energy theories into a non-fantastical category. The very large majority of physicists think MOND and similar are defunct theories. Dark matter and energy are very different, separate phenomena that just share a name. It does not make sense for them to have a shared explanation. There are also so, so many ways we observe dark matter that make it clear there is matter involved. Every new observation has completely overturned the predictions of every MOND or modified gravity theory, and they just come back with a totally different explanation to fit the new data.

dventimi 1y ago
"There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc." That's a fair point. It's just my perception that those things don't tend to be taken very seriously by people commenting on HN.
Validark 1y ago
> Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Ironically, you are positing a grand unifying theory here by stating that detractors from mainstream opinions just want simpler answers. But isn't it simpler to just go with the mainstream opinion and go with the flow? Alternative models of the earth are typically rooted in Biblical or ancient belief systems. Any specific argument based on physics come long after a person's acceptance of, e.g., the Bible. And I can't even imagine how you might think anti-vax beliefs are simpler so I can't speak to that. Homeopathy sounds pretty dumb to me, sure, but also there are tons of reasons to distrust the medical system in the USA, I'd be surprised if anyone seriously argued against that. I can understand why people suspicious of America's medical culture of prescribing 10 medications to someone instead of lifestyle changes might see a bottle of sugar pills at the store labeled with "natural remedy" and think it could be a better alternative. > Every new observation has completely overturned the predictions of every MOND or modified gravity theory, and they just come back with a totally different explanation to fit the new data. That's how science works. Scientists are not prophets, they do not have the luxury of starting with all the answers. It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest. I'm guess I'm just a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic, but when I hear someone suggest an alternative theory I don't immediately feel the need to group them with everything I think is wrong with the world. Instead I think, "That's really cool they came up with a different model of the universe. I wonder how they account for everything we observe and how it will be refined over time and whether it will predict new discoveries." Even if your current theory never gets overturned, I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time. Just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, and it doesn't mean there's a 100% certainty that you got it right.