Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data

[Jarvamundo]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839

[renormalised]

Interesting article. However, I think they'll have to do more observation runs before they can rule anything out or in, as yet.

[xelasnave]

Given the estimation of the huge amount of dark matter "out there" one would think they would have a trailer load by now;)...
I still think the dark matter idea will fail and push will overcome:lol::lol::lol::D
Thanks for the link I really enjoyed it:thumbsup:.
alex:):):)

[Steffen]

I do hope they find dark matter soon. It sounds ideal for blackening the inside of telescope tubes… :lol:

Cheers
Steffen.

[renormalised]

Only $2.50 a tin:):P

[Robh]

Interesting find. Excuse me, "unfind".

Leaves everyone in the dark. Sorry ... I guess it doesn't!
Maybe they could use a spectre-o-meter! :lol:

Regards, Rob.

[Nesti]

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, I don't believe the damn things even exists.

[Jarvamundo]

Standard model looks like a piece of swiss cheese to me...

You'd have to admit tho... they have done a good job at detecting 'nothing' with incredible detail.

Next up to enhance their detections of nothing... NSF throws =$250M at LIGO 'enhancement'.... ESA potentially $4B at LISA

cynical? yup...
time to be? Ligo is +30yrs... if not now, gettin closer.

a BBC documentary along the same lines in 2010?
yup: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0

[sjastro]

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work here.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Steven my relativist minder... :)
I just think Dark Energy, Dark Matter are nothing more than mathematical descriptions of how far standard is off.... and no amount of mathematical hand waving is going to get these detectors to show anything, cos it aint there. Instead of reaching out to nature for a lesson, we are demanding it fit our model with matter never discovered in ALL other fields of science. Instead of using real physics, cosmology is wandering down a model demanding 95% new physics.

good to see BBC also now describing it as such, in a balanced presentation...

Argumentum ad ignorantiam applies for both for and against standard model in this instance...

[Steffen]

But we won't know that with any degree of certainty unless we go looking for it.



On the contrary, some cosmologists came up with a hypothesis and a lot of others found it has merit so they are designing and carrying out experiments to test it. Seems like standard scientific method to me.



This has happened before, remember? Some outlandish theories predicting the existence of even more outlandish things, that were later actually discovered in practice. Just because it's groundbreaking doesn't mean it's wrong.

If you don't agree with the hypothesis you can dispute it will real arguments or design experiments of your own to disprove it. Casting doubt over the integrity or sanity of the majority of cosmologists and firing sarcastic shots from the sideline isn't the way to go about it.

Cheers
Steffen.

[Jarvamundo]

Casting doubts over Sanity? Integrity? Where'd that come from?

Aux contrare' my friend, I think the scientists have done an excellent job of detecting nothing with a high degree of certainty.

The models say that these experiments are designed with "astrophysically interesting sensitivity". They were funded with big money with this in mind.

and they detect.... 'nothing'...

Sorry mate, in my book that model is falsified. GravB, LIGO, GEO600, This one...

Remember now... LIGO ran in triple coincidence for a whole year... that means their Hanford and Livingston observatories also locked in step.... for a whole year... n n n nothing.

So on one hand we have Eddington's 1910s sun observations still being heralded as proof!.... but on the other... 2010's modern sophisticated, computer controlled laser interferometers, working in combined triple coincidence with 100s if not 1000's of highly trained scientists, engineers and relativists involved in the 30 year experiment.... detecting nothing. Cmon... wakeup.

[renormalised]

No one here seems to have thought of an obvious reason as to why we've not detected any gravitational waves, as yet. That is, we're probably too far away from the possible sources of gravitational waves. Even though we may need pretty extreme conditions to generate waves that are detectable, we might just be too far away from the sources of these waves and by the time the waves, if any, reach us, they maybe undetectable. Even with extremely sensitive instruments. We might never detect them on Earth....we may have to move a detector closer to the sources to find them. So...who's got a starship sitting in their backyard:)

[Robh]

Something came to mind I read a while back, where they might be able to use milli-second pulsars to detect gravitational waves. They would essentially be at the source.

Tracked down an article on it ...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Finding_Millisecond_Pul sars_Faster_Than_Ever_999.html

Regards, Rob.

[renormalised]

I've seen that article before, Rob. Very interesting study. It would be interesting to see what results they get for the gravitational wave experiments they're thinking of using them for.

[sjastro]

Instead of making vague generalizations based on perceptions instead of facts why don't you demonstrate where the current science is wrong.

For example show me the logical inconsistancies in the GR theory of gravitational waves, since by your definition they don't exist hence the theory must be wrong.



No it doesn't. In this context argumentum ad ignorantiam is the result on making conclusions on non observations. Dark energy and dark matter are based on observations.

Regards

Steven

[sjastro]

What has the Eddington sun observations on the gravitational bending of light got anything to do gravitational wave experiments?

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Facts? like empirical ones? I did, I've listed some empirical failures above.


I'm cool with empirical science... How bout you show me they do exist in reality.

I have no doubt mathematics can describe them... I'm more interested in reality tho.



Dark energy and dark matter are mathematical descriptions of how far off empirical reality is from fitting the mathematical model we call standard.

How far off? well thats the definition of DM and DE

BBC Documentary - Even the cosmologists admit this....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0

You've got no idea what Dark Matter "IS" same with Dark Energy, the best empirical evidence we have to date is high definition measurements of 'nothing'.

It's misleading to say it "exists" in reality.



The verification of GR theory predictions. I was making the point that computers, lasers, highly accurate observational techniques were simply not around when the trophy of GR was held up.

[marki]

The standard model does describe empirical observation e.g. why is the universe expanding at an accellerated rate? Why do galaxies cluster together? How do galaxies stay in one piece when they shouldn't? and so on. These things we can see and measure but not explain in any meaningful way. What concerns me most about the model is that we have created a single "entity" (for want of a better term) e.g. dark matter and dark energy to explain these phenomena and have gone all out to discover single solutions. What if dark matter is really several smaller "entities" working together and what we observe is the nett affect. Might explain why we haven't been able to detect anything, perhaps we can't see the trees because of the forrest.

Mark

[Nesti]

Putting all of the 'Dark' theroies and ideas aside for just a moment; perhaps all of the [original] anomalies are one and the same. Perhaps they might be attributed to some sort of relationship between energy, matter, spacetime and interactions with higher dimensional space (assuming it exists of course).

Might there be other, higher dimensional metrics at work, affecting energy and matter within spacetime. This would at least account for the unobservable aspect of it all.

[renormalised]

Good point. If string and m-brane theories are correct, most of gravity's strength, in fact, leaks off into these higher dimensional planes therefore accounting for gravity's weakness w.r.t the other forces. What we may have is some sort of effect of gravity in these higher dimensions "leaking" back into "normal" spacetime and creating a "shadow" mass, if you will.

[sjastro]

Empirical failures? Is there a statute of limitation before an experiment is deemed a failure?
It took 26 years from prediction to discovery of the neutrino, 21 years for the top quark.
Your argument is pure argumentum ad ignorantiam.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

With regards to mathematics being nothing more a descriptive tool, is an ill informed comment.
Here is of the role of mathematics in physics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem

Your avoidance of showing why GR fails only reinforces argumentum ad ignorantiam.



What you have failed to take into consideration is that dark matter and dark energy is cosmology are defined as effects. The empircal evidence of the effects of dark matter are the galaxy rotation curves, gravitational lensing etc, dark energy is through the light curves of supernovae of distant galaxies.

As to what dark matter and dark energy actually is, becomes an exercise in particle physics. So blowing one's trumpet that dark matter and dark energy doesn't exist is premature given the history of long experiment/discovery times.



Bollocks! You have combined two totally unrelated events in order to create the impression of a contradiction. That is so obvious.

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

Glad someone sees my point. But not just in relation to this issue of unexplainable phenomenon relating to mass and energy, what about non-local action at a distance. I think it was Bell who showed that no information is transmitted in action at a distance and therefore no violation of SR, BUT, couldn't action at a distance (ie spin entanglement) possibly be an effect of higher dimensional connectivity also? And what about Young's Double Slit Exp. too?

QM may well be a complete theory, but are we actually observing the complete picture?!

For me, I see no less absurdity in what I'm suggesting here, than that of the creation of Phantom matter and Phantom energy in spacetime to solve the riddle in the observations...and yet many, perhaps most, Astrophysicists and Cosmologists reject the notion of higher dimensions. Perhaps it's too close to the Ether argument.

[renormalised]

If you look at "spooky action", it might just be a case of a "doppelganger" effect. Given that the higher dimensional state one finds oneself in, the greater degrees of freedom you have, might it be that what we see as two separate particles in our spacetime are in fact the same particle?? You could say that the particle is literally appearing in two places simultaneously, but that is only from our own perspective. In higher dimensional space, the particles might be the same one, occupying a particular point in that higher space. But from our perspective, it appears at two widely separate points.

Mind you, that is only speculation.

Maybe the astrophysicists and the cosmologists have been inhaling too much "ether":):P

[marki]

Or ethernol :P.

[KenGee]

Hey Alex I solved the dark matter "problem" in another thread. It's the cosmic fridges the reason why you can't see them is cause theirs doors are closed.
The question I think the important question that is not answered is..how do we realy know the light turns off, when we close the fridge door? I think this could be where you ideas about the electric universe could come into their own Alex.

[Nesti]

Now ask yourself; is it any wonder that Einstein chose to ignore the transformations in science (the later QM theories), and persisted with his conventional [Relativistic] pursuits of a TOE?!

I really do believe that Einstein will be shown to be partly correct in centuries to come.

...although he outwardly dismissing Kaluza and Klein's ideas, I reckon he carried the concepts back into spacetime, in the form of his Evolution Equations.

<As in Einstein’s evolution equations, where they "encompass the whole history of a universe" – it is not just some snapshot of how things are, but a whole spacetime: a statement encompassing the state of matter and geometry everywhere and at every moment in that particular universe. The system is in a given state at some given moment, the laws of physics allow you to extrapolate its past or future. For Einstein’s equations, there appear to be subtle differences compared with other fields: for example, they are self-interacting (that is, non-linear even in the absence of other fields, and they have no fixed background structure).>

[Jarvamundo]

I'm with ya Steven... DM and DE are descriptions of effects... i'm cool with that...

What grinds my gears is 'inventing' new physics, as has been done with the DM and DE... Then waving your hands around saying it actually exists,
it doesn't you have only described how far of real physics is off from your measured 'effects'... To then take the next step, invent a new hypothesized force and matter far beyond anything empirically experienced in nature, needs to be taken as just that.... an imaginary idea... To then start pouring big cash into finding this abundant "force" and "matter" that makes up 95% of the planet, that is required to mathematically prop up the model... is what concerns me... I'm now starting to think after 50 years, they may have seriously misunderstood the possible effects involved in the measurements of light and spectrums.

Using <5% empirical physics to describe the universe is not a position to be gloating about.
Plenty of work is being done on explaining the 'galaxy rotation problems', 'lenses', 'dark energy' WITHOUT using imaginary new physics... just empirical well understood forces...

http://sydney.edu.au/science/physics/~bmg/papers/stories/301Gaensler-3.pdf

Re KenGee: Have a listen to Gaensler talk about your fridge magnets... USyd....http://www.brainsmatter.com/?p=249

I believe these men are not being pushed down the path of imaginary graph paper certainty, just open to nature with humility of natural philosophy spirit. I will choose real physics over imaginary every time, look forward to discussion on this.

I acknowledge that your hunt for 'dark' is now a problem for particle physicists..... this is what ticks me off.... I would prefer that the astronomers and cosmologists use REAL physics from all fields, chemistry, physics, nuclear physics, biology to build their models. Not tell the fields to "go look for" what must be there.

Best,

[sjastro]

From a Cosmology perspective DM was "created" to avoid the development of new physics.
For example the anomalous galaxy rotation curves is explained by applying celestial mechanics where stellar orbits are being perturbed, like the Moon's orbit is being perturbed by the Sun.

The irony is that new physics such as MOND is required to argue the case that DM doesn't exist.

DM has no place in the current Standard Model for particle physics but it opens up the possibility of Supersymmetry, an idea that has been around since the 1970s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry

The point is that scientists are loathe to invent new physics to explain anomalities.

DE is different because it is unique. The physics of energy involves the motion of objects in space, DE involves the motion (expansion) of space-time itself.
While DE is not well understood, scientists view DE as a vacuum energy as defined in Quantum Field theory even though it doesn't match up well with the value of the cosmological constant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Whether one views Cosmology as a "feeder science" or a "handball science" is a matter of opinion.

While Cosmology doesn't deal directly with what DE actually is, it has a serious problem with DE. It needs to explain why the Universe began accelerating 5 billion years ago. It cannot rely on other sciences to bail it out.

Regards

Steven

[KenGee]

Gee Alex Newton would be rolling in his grave. Why is it that people with pet theories think everyone else has missed the obvious?

[Nesti]

Outch!!!

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks Steven, I think your comments have a good perspective on DM and DE.

Re: KenGee,
Newton did not know about EM Nature
Einstein did not have access to detailed radio astronomy, which are now mapping galactic magnetic fields

Standard as yet to incorporate these new findings in a serious manner, Gaensler and many others are working on incorporating these.... It's not 'new dark physics' although it will most certainly help reduce the amount required!

To suggest Newton marked the end of cosmological progression is, well... putting your head in 400yr old sand. Good luck there.

[sjastro]

Scientists are now engaged in a war of words over conflicting results.:)

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42554

[renormalised]

Know what, Stephen...this is a classic case of "my science is better than your science and I'm right, you're wrong"...along with a healthy dose of politics and funding involved. They're just trying to protect their pet experiments and their reputations. It's like a bunch of school kids arguing over who's got the better footy team and who's on which side. Childish and counterproductive, if you ask me.

But typical.

[Robh]

Nothing like a bit of heated discussion. :poke:
Interesting to see which way it goes.
Hopefully, peer review will give us a better idea.

Regards, Rob.

[sjastro]

Scientists are showing their human side. Egos are easily bruised.

Once the emotion subsides, hopefully constructive debate will arise leading to a greater understanding.

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

Was this unexpected...? As long as man's cosmological equations are considered untouchable truth, then when the ball is passed to reality-physics... this will no doubt occur more and more regularly.

The cosmological pendulum continues to swing... classic :D

[sjastro]

A potential hazard of peer review if it includes members of the opposing camps.:D

Regards

Steven

[Nesti]

Imagine if dark energy, dark matter, and all of the weirdness was there for no reason at all, but simply to block us from knowing everything...so that we can just accept everything for what it is and just get-on and enjoy our short little lives...to look-up and enjoy the stars for what they are...LOL, wouldn't that be funny.

Hope we're smart enough to listen!

[Jarvamundo]

Cmon Steven, thats absurd, surely you're not indicating science is corruptible :P

Newton would be rolling in his grave!!


This is funny stuff... Mark, your extra dimensional thoughts are on par with what I see from these guys...

ROFL

[renormalised]

I think there's going to be sniping going on for quite awhile yet, if it ever really goes away entirely.

[Jarvamundo]

I've seen a battle with an algorithmic piece of wood, and an empirical one...

It's not pretty. :lol:

[Nesti]

Hey, don't drag me into the steaming pile of you-know-what that you created. :lol:

You're flying solo mate. I get into enough trouble around here as it is.

Nothing wrong with my thoughts; they're just suggestions ya know!

[renormalised]

Theoretically:):P

[Nesti]

Hey Carl, how about this "Theoretical...Hypothetical...Non-Scientific Method...Suggestion"?! ***Covered all my bases now I think***

Dark matter and dark energy being simply the activity of other metrics moving energy (possibly even mass) around in higher dimensional space, BUT, with spatial and perhaps temporal [dimensional] connectivity to our spacetime.

So what we might see is unexplainable [apparent] movement of mass/energy in spacetime, attributed to higher dimensional metric carry-over values into spacetime. These effects could be local, as in the case of dark matter, or perhaps universal, as in the case of dark energy.

No phantoms, only shadows of metric ghosts; energetic activity occurring elsewhere.

Let's call it 'Metric Ghosting'.


Just take the Randell-Sundrum model to the next logical stage, ie higher dimensional gravitational effects cascading down into spacetime. Yeah?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randall%E2%80%93Sundrum_model

Clip of Randell on Charlie Rose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMm38apPNUs

[KenGee]

Ha ha Alex, can you answer a basic question? lets pretend that EM is not know nor is QED and even E=mc2. Now just using 400 year old Newton and the observed rotation of galaxies, can we show that galaxies must contain more matter (mass) then we can observe?

Now you don't need to answer (but go ahead anyway) what I'm showing is there are many lines of evidence for the existence of dark matter. The science relating to dark matter has come along way from that basic observation, but is has moved forward step by step based on observation and evidence.

It's quite alright for you or others to come up with a better explanation of the evidence, but you need to explain all of the known observations and you need to do it better then the existing theory. I guess this is the bit you really don't do.

[bojan]

New empirical evidence for dark energy:
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/starving-yogi-prahlad-jani-astounds-indian-scientists-after-two-week-surveillance-trial/story-e6frfku0-1225864840246

[renormalised]

Yep, he should be able to tell us what's going on:):P

[Nesti]

Nobody "needs" to do anything; might I point-out that this is just a discussion forum. :D

This is precisely where to air ones ideas, as good or bad as they may be. :)

[Nesti]

Guess that's an end to the thread then....where's the 'Popcorn' emoticon???

Can we have a 'Popcorn' emoticon please? Mods?

[renormalised]

Problem solved...no need for the LHC or multimillion dollar research grants anymore:):P

[Jarvamundo]

Nail on the head brother. Time for popcorn

[renormalised]

Yes, but then it's a case of identifying what that mass is made of. If you can't see it and detect it (except by its gravitational influence), then you have to come up with a way of explaining what it is.

Once you've ruled out all the obvious and usual suspects, then what are you left with??

That's when you have to make some left of field assumptions as to what it might be...then try and formulate a hypothesis to explain what you think it may be.

Then you test your hypothesis, try to falsify it (as many times as it takes), then come up with a theory to explain the why's and wherefores.

And still get left with an unsatisfactory answer:)

Because you're afraid to admit you haven't a clue at what you're looking at, and understand it even less:)

[marki]

Now we are getting there ;):).

Mark