Quote:
Originally Posted by 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...Gaensler-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, |
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