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

81–90 of 118 posts

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#81

Post by gnaritas »

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.

You aren't thinking outside the box, you're just spewing pseudo science about things you don't understand because the real science makes you feel uncomfortable.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#82

Post by poelzi »

Steuard wrote: post #53
hliyan wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I linked the newsletter, go through each of those papers and you will see, that those come from the peer reviewed process. It's hard to believe that those scientists will still think that the Big Bang happened.

Eric Lerner, from LPP fusion to just mention one of them: Nice presentation with his findings:

https://vimeo.com/97608525

If you give me an explanations for each of the findings in the newsletter mentioned, I would reconsider, but 20 evidential findings that do absolutely not fit, are enough for me to declare a theory falsified.

Apart from the Background Radiation, (2.72 K) which is derived for me (BSM-SG Mainbook Chapter 5.2), not much speaks for the theory at all and this is ignoring the huge number of theoretical problems.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#83

Post by Govannon »

GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #79
trhway wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is? Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain. This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i kno…

Chinese characters are not 'hieroglyphs.'

And they are logograms, or at least they compose a logographic system.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#84

Post by blincoln »

Steuard wrote: post #29
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…

Possible! There certainly is a lot that feels inelegant in the dominant model, and nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us. But (as I just noted in some detail in a different comment here) the "Lambda-CDM" model of a universe evolving in the presence of a cosmological constant and cold dark matter has proven to be quite remarkably consistent under a wide variety…

> nobody has yet proposed a reason that so much of the universe would be so oddly invisible to us.

IANAP, but it seems pretty consistent with the brane element of M-theory to me.

If you have a bunch of 3-dimensional branes sitting next to each other in a hyperdimensional bulk, and gravity is the only force which can pass between them, then of course you're going to end up with what appears to be invisible matter. It's the aggregate mass that has clumped together in the respective 3D branes, as close as is possible to the adjacent branes.

E.g. dropping one dimension, stack some glass sheets and magnets, with the two interleaved. The magnets on one level will be affected by the fields on other levels, but any 2D flatlanders on any given level will be unable to actually see those other magnets. It will be as if some ghostly "dark magnets" are passing right through their own.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#85

Post by PKop »

trhway wrote: post #45
jstanley wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is? Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain. This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i kno…

Does the dog have the capacity to understand how the universe works? Does the dog have the capacity to understand physics to the degree that we understand it now?

No. So the dog has its limits, as we have ours. Where the limits are is certainly up for debate, but hard to believe there is no limit.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#86

Post by gnaritas »

trhway wrote: post #45
jstanley wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>a mouse simply does not have the capacity to understand French. we don't really know what capacity is required to do it. 1PFlops? 1P neuron synapse transfers/minute? What capacity and in what units mouse brain is? Our human brain evolution has abused low efficiency size increase approach. As result we're using only like 10% of capacity of our brain. This dog knows 1000 words in human language. That's more than i kno…

> to the comment below on 10% - there is a difference between 10% capacity and 10% neurons. The fact that most of our brain is physiologically participating while producing that little capacity most of the time in most of the people is exactly the low efficiency i was talking about.

And still no. Phrase it however you like, it's still wrong. You are not using just 10% of your brain in any manner or means, there is not some great untapped potential waiting to be turned on, your brain is not low efficiency.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#87

Post by undersuit »

ajuc wrote: post #69
wlievens wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

We wouldn't have discovered the impossible to understand laws no matter if they exist or not.

Or we have already discovered some of the impossible to understand laws and we are desperately throwing any theory at these inconsistencies in our understanding to no avail.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#88

Post by drdeca »

renox wrote: post #47
jahnu wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand how the universe works? I can't remember where I read it but someone made the point that no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.

> Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand how the universe works? We don't understand QM but we can still use the equations to make predictions.. You're suggesting that we can't create better equations which explain more the universe? That's quite a bit early to say that.. I'm more worried about our possibility of creating experiments which can be used then to select which equation is the right one.

I think they meant that maybe we can't discover the final entirely correct ones.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#89

Post by ftchirou »

jahnu wrote: post #38
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…

Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand how the universe works? I can't remember where I read it but someone made the point that no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.

> no matter how hard you try you can never teach a mouse to understand French.

Maybe because a mouse is not even aware of "French". At least, humans are aware of the universe, they may not understand it completely but they are aware of it.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#90

Post by ISL »

ccozan wrote: post #28
hliyan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I understand, we can detect them through their gravitational effects and not much else. If we fully account for the pulls of all the non-dark bodies in the vicinity (Earth, Sun, Moon) and then manage to measure an anomalous gravitational pull (say on a mass connected to an extremely fine sensor) that changes with the motion of the measuring apparatus, that (I think) ought to do it. Disclaimer: not physicist.

actually, there is something that it is not really understood: the 5.9 years period of gravitational constant variation. [1]. Maybe the Earth is passing through such a filament? [1] http://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.htm...

There's been a follow-up paper from three scientists whose independent G-measurements reach some of the lowest-claimed uncertainties.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01774

Post reply on HN