Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #1 04-05-2010, 11:43 AM

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

renormalised (Carl) · #2 04-05-2010, 12:09 PM

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

xelasnave · #3 04-05-2010, 02:15 PM

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

Thanks for the link I really enjoyed it

.
alex

Steffen · #4 04-05-2010, 02:44 PM

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

Cheers
Steffen.

renormalised (Carl) · #5 04-05-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffen

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

Cheers
Steffen.

Only $2.50 a tin

Robh (Rob) · #6 04-05-2010, 11:10 PM

Interesting find. Excuse me, "unfind".

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

Regards, Rob.

Nesti (Mark) · #7 06-05-2010, 06:18 PM

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

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #8 06-05-2010, 07:04 PM

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 · #9 06-05-2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

"Argumentum ad ignorantiam" at work here.

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #10 07-05-2010, 09:04 AM

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 · #11 07-05-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

no amount of mathematical hand waving is going to get these detectors to show anything, cos it aint there.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

Instead of using real physics, cosmology is wandering down a model demanding 95% new physics.

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 (Alex) · #12 07-05-2010, 11:44 AM

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 (Carl) · #13 07-05-2010, 11:46 AM

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 (Rob) · #14 07-05-2010, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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/As..._Ever_999.html

Regards, Rob.

renormalised (Carl) · #15 07-05-2010, 04:18 PM

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 · #16 07-05-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

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

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 · #17 07-05-2010, 05:16 PM

Quote:

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.

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

Regards

Steven

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #18 07-05-2010, 05:49 PM

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Dark energy and dark matter are based on observations.

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.

Quote:

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

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 · #19 07-05-2010, 07:06 PM

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 (Mark) · #20 07-05-2010, 07:58 PM

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.