Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter • Hacker News Board

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#91

Post by Steuard » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

blincoln wrote: post #84

Steuard wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Poor phrasing on my part, I think. Brane models (whether in M-theory or elsewhere) are certainly one way of producing this sort of phenomenon theoretically. (I've done research on branes in both string and M-theory.) But ultimately, what you've described is just as arbitrary as declaring "this quantum field has no electric or color charge": there's no reason known that we'd happen to have those two brane stacks in the right positions to mimic ordinary matter interacting with dark matter. (Why exactly the right branes and intersections to reproduce the standard model? Why also this separate brane or branes at a carefully chosen distance to have meaningful gravitational interactions but not gauge interactions? What stabilizes the separation of the branes over cosmological timescales? etc.)

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#92

Post by Retra » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:54 PM UTC

yxhuvud wrote: post #77

daveguy wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes there is. Models can be disproved by empiricism without needing another model. However, even if a model doesn't work all the time, it doesn't mean it is useless for prediction. Newtons laws is still in use, for example.

Newton's laws weren't disproved, they were just shown to be less general than originally assumed. Quantum theories usually assume Newton's laws to be true axiomatically, otherwise the quantum theory would be under-specified and practically useless.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#93

Post by pavel_lishin » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 4:55 PM UTC

trhway wrote: post #70

pavel_lishin wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all as a mouse says to another mouse - "no matter how hard you try you can never teach a human to understand mouse language". But mice don't say that. They can't . jahnu's statement wasn't a parable.

>But mice don't say that. check the various articles on animal language decoding. Mice and other animals do say that or similar complexity things. >They can't. That just an empty statement of belief unsubstantiated by facts. Again check the articles. In general, the "only humans have language" is simply the religious "only humans have soul" dogma in disguise.

It doesn't look like they're having conversations. It looks like they're seeing some sort of stimulus, and are making relevant noises. It's a pretty impressive reflex, but it's not a conversation - it's an announcement. It's no more of a conversation than a hungry baby crying.

> Mice and other animals do say that

Okay, find me a link that says mice complain about humans not learning their language.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#94

Post by semi-extrinsic » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:05 PM UTC

poelzi wrote: post #80

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 at…

Search for Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory then, its by Dr. Stoyan Sarg QM is a theory. There are facts and theories and they should not be confused. Who we think the universe is governed is based on theories that are derived from facts. But for nearly all facts, you can find different explanations. It is not that the BSM-SG theory will not provide you with equations that are similar to Q…

> Compare the Atlas of BSM-SG model with what QM provides and you will see, that the angles of the BSM-SG model are much more precise what complex chemical structures look like.

So I looked at all those pictures in the viXra paper, and there is not a single chemical bond or molecule anywhere. Care to explain?

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#95

Post by bweitzman » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

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".

Truth is just a sufficiently correct predictive model

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#96

Post by jacquesm » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

rthomas6 wrote: post #74

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.

That depends on how long the mouse has to be taught. If we had 1,000 years I bet we could do it.

I don't think mice live for 1,000 years so there is a slight problem with your theory.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#97

Post by geuis » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

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.

That point of view is inherently untrue. We have an extremely good understanding of how the universe works. The Standard Model has been worked on since the 40's and has been experimentally proven and refined ever since.

There are things the SM doesn't account for yet, such as dark energy, dark matter, and gravity. That doesn't mean it's beyond human understanding, just that there's more to the universe we haven't discovered yet.

In the worst case, those things will have interesting but not surprising answers. Slight modifications to the SM to account for some new particle types, etc.

In the best case, they turn out to be something completely unexpected and the SM turns out to be the equivalent of Newtonian theory. Perfectly good and accurate theories about the nature of the universe that are just a subset of a wider physics model, like how Newtonian theory exists within the Standard Model.

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#98

Post by geuis » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:29 PM UTC

First thing that occurred to me: could/would this look something like iron filings around a magnet if the dark matter stuff could be seen? Something like this. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://apex-emovendollc...

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#99

Post by scentoni » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

poelzi wrote: post #18

hliyan wrote: post #11

I find this fascinating, but still purely hypothetical, yes? Basically: IF the observed expansion of the universe is indeed due to dark matter as we think of it, and IF such dark matter exist as streams, and IF such streams mix with ordinary galaxies, and IF the solar system is passing through such a stream THEN Earth MAY have dark matter filaments in its vicinity. IF we locate such a filament and send a probe, we mi…

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…

In case this isn't immediately clear, BSM-SG is crackpottery akin to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube

Re: Earth Might Have Hairy Dark Matter

#100

Post by dnautics » Wed, Nov 25, 2015, 5:35 PM UTC

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #51

poelzi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 at…

Hybridization is this wierd fiction. It's trivially true because you can create any orbital via conservative linear combination of other orbitals, but only some of them will be energetically meaningful.

What hybridization would you expect water to have? You're wrong. It's not.

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/images/h2o_orbitals.gif

But our current qm are really bad at predicting bond angles. Vsepr is basically a geometric argument, and most of our understanding of bond angles is strictly emperical.