Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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"

[marki]

Originally Posted by renormalised

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

Or ethernol .

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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"

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 (Alex)]

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.

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,

[sjastro]

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

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

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 (Mark)]

Originally Posted by 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?

Outch!!!

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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

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 (Rob)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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

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

Regards, Rob.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 (Alex)]

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

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Robh

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

Regards, Rob.

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

Regards

Steven

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

Regards

Steven

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

Newton would be rolling in his grave!!

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

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

ROFL