Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
I agree again, was dark matter / energy predicted or is it an ever changing mathematical description of the problem? (ie it describes would be required by a gravity-only model to correct that original galaxy rotation graph). Tis why it's best describes as a hypothetical entity for now, to me thats just simply defining the problem? Something 'real' is certainly premature.
The predictions of a model containing 90%+ constants (new physics) should be carefully assessed and weighted, there's alot of room to move.
|
Neither.
Dark matter and dark energy evolved from observation.
The theoretical aspects are
derived from mainstream theory not
invented.
This is why I used Neptune as an analogy for dark matter.
Scientists took an existing theory (Newtonian gravitational theory) and applied it as a
perturbation to the orbit of Uranus.
In other words there was no need to alter the theory.
The same type of reasoning applies to explaining the rotational curves through the presence of dark matter.
Dark energy although not as clear cut has it's origins in quantum field theory. It attempts to explain the cosmological constant as a vacuum energy fluctuation.
The point is that neither dark matter or dark energy involves "new" physics. It's an increasing crossover of QFT into cosmology and celestial mechanics.
The fundamental problem with dark matter is that if it does exist it will impact on the Standard Model in particle physics.
If dark matter turns out to being ordinary matter observed at a different wavelength then no such problem exists.
Regards
Steven