Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#51

Post by semi-extrinsic »

poelzi wrote: post #24
deanCommie wrote: post #3

The edge of human understanding of the universe is a vague and scary place. When we dug deep below the atom level everything we took for granted fell apart. We had to invent an entirely new model of physics to make sense of our observations, which is complex and counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics) Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the…

That is exactly which brought me to the BSM-SG model. When nothing seems to fit well and the physics appear stranger and stranger, you should ask yourself: did we do everything right ? Did we do some mistakes in measurements ? Do we have some some wrong assumptions ? Turns out: yes. If you remove those wrong assumptions, you end up with a classic logical model that makes sense in very aspect. QM is just to raw for ex…

When googling "BSM-SG", the top result is a thread (by poelzi) on a cold fusion forum... Which contains this nugget:

"If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn?"

Really? You couldn't be bothered to sit down with an organic chemistry textbook and discover that QM is the basis for our entire understanding of how atoms form chemical bonds? You've never heard of sp3 hybridisation? E.g. Paula Bruice's book "Organic Chemistry" starts with QM as the most fundamental piece and builds everything from that. Read it.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#52

Post by derrickdirge »

k8tte wrote: post #16
danbruc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Essentially the defining property of dark matter is that it does not interact electromagnetically, so there is no point to consider it.

I think you misunderstood me. I am saying the electromagnetic force can be fit the bill where we currently are trying to squeeze in "dark matter". Please be aware that we have not discovered dark matter, we don't know what its made of, its properties, or really, if it even exists. But i get it. Thinking outside of the box is frowned upon around here. Lets all be fanboys, and fuck yea downvote me some more.

If I was in the market to downvote someone, that last line would've sold me.

Can we please try to keep our delicate egos out of the discussion? If I wanted to see people gripe bitterly about their comments being downvoted, I'd go to reddit.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#53

Post by Steuard »

hliyan wrote: post #36
poelzi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The universe does not expand: www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf I follow the BSM-SG model in which dark matter/dark energy is absolutely clear what it is and how it functions. The illustration is even a bit similar to the BSM-SG model, if you see it as the CL dimensions. Larger astronomical bodies have their own CL space, which means they carry a bubble with them those geometry is dependent on the body itself…

What I meant to say was: our observations with regards to expansion (or lack thereof). Thanks for the clarification (although you could have explained some of tho acronyms you used for the benefit of non-physicists).

The previous poster probably ought to have explained those acronyms for the benefit of physicists, too: I'm a tenured physics professor specializing in high energy theory (with some research experience in relativity and cosmology), and I've never heard of that model. (Most physicists I know are also hesitant to flat out contradict widely accepted and observationally verified models without at least a bit of caution in their language, too: just saying "the universe does not expand" without qualification is unusually bold. To my knowledge I have never met a professional physicist who doesn't buy into at least the basic framework of the Big Bang model.)

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#54

Post by wlievens »

deanCommie wrote: post #3

The edge of human understanding of the universe is a vague and scary place. When we dug deep below the atom level everything we took for granted fell apart. We had to invent an entirely new model of physics to make sense of our observations, which is complex and counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics) Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the…

I have a similar sentiment. I know nothing's of physics beyond high school stuff and popsci, but to me Dark Matter feels like "aether 2.0". I'm probably wrong.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#55

Post by wlievens »

lmm wrote: post #37
deanCommie wrote: post #3

The edge of human understanding of the universe is a vague and scary place. When we dug deep below the atom level everything we took for granted fell apart. We had to invent an entirely new model of physics to make sense of our observations, which is complex and counter-intuitive (quantum mechanics) Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the…

The point I always make when this comes up is: epicycles, negative-mass phlogiston, æther and all the rest were good physics at the time. People who used them made more accurate predictions than any alternatives. So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.

True, but we've come to seek more than just predictive models, we want understanding and "truth".

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#56

Post by wlievens »

jstanley wrote: post #43
trhway wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French. humans couldn't so far teach mouse a human language. That doesn't mean that mouse doesn't have something like several thousands or tens of thousands of basic sounds and combinations of them into meaningful (for mouse) sequences. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/running-ponies/catch-the... After all as a mouse says to another mouse - "no…

No but the point is a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. Maybe humans do not have the capacity to understand the complete workings of physics.

But that could only be the case if those laws are very, very complicated. So far physical laws have been on the side of "understandable if you invest a couple years of study as a reaonably intelligent person".

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#57

Post by lmm »

wlievens wrote: post #55
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I always make when this comes up is: epicycles, negative-mass phlogiston, æther and all the rest were good physics at the time. People who used them made more accurate predictions than any alternatives. So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.

True, but we've come to seek more than just predictive models, we want understanding and "truth".

I'd say the opposite; we've come to realise that accurate predictions are the truest benchmark and notions of understanding can often be misleading.

But supposing you're right, so what? Unless you'd prefer a more understandable but inaccurate model, there's still no better alternative to dark matter or dark energy.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#58

Post by daveguy »

wlievens wrote: post #55
lmm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I always make when this comes up is: epicycles, negative-mass phlogiston, æther and all the rest were good physics at the time. People who used them made more accurate predictions than any alternatives. So yes, dark matter and dark energy are probably not the full story. But they are the best model we currently have, and it's very easy to criticize and much harder to offer a positive counterproposal.

True, but we've come to seek more than just predictive models, we want understanding and "truth".

Until you have a better predictive model there's no way to tell what you had before wasn't the "truth".

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#59

Post by wlievens »

fengwick3 wrote: post #13
golergka wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Would it be reasonable to assume that the same applies at the opposite end of the spectrum: from the sub-atomic to the super-galactical? Isn't special relativity complex and counter-intuitive enough?

I don't think special relativity is quite on the same level of strangeness (no pun intended) of quantum physics. For one, the axioms of special relativity are actually pretty believable, not to mention the incredible elegance of its integration with classical electromagnetism.

And the metaphors for relativity hold up longer than a few seconds once you start asking questions.
Post reply on HN