Live data from Hacker News

The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

medium.com

171–180 of 315 posts

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#171

How do you square the following notions? a) dark matter does not interact with measurable matter b) proof of dark matter's existence derived by the measurable, relative, interaction of mass and energy

Summarizing on the fly, so necessarily wrong in details:

Regular matter interacts via the four forces: strong interaction, weak interaction, electromagnetism and gravity.

Strong interaction: binds fundamental particles together to make atoms. In every day terms, it’s what makes mass, mass.

Weak interaction and electromagnetism: causes radioactive decay and EM radiation (photons). In every day terms, it’s how we get light, radio, cell phones, etc. Also nuclear power.

Gravity: attraction of mass across great distances. It’s how we stick to the earth and why the earth circles the sun.

There are particles that don’t act through forces but are affected by them:

Photons don’t have mass so don’t cause gravity but are affected by it.

Neutrinos don’t have an electromagnetism effect so they can’t be seen at all only measured in very rare weak interactions.

Dark matter: No strong interaction so not a part of atoms. No EM interaction so we can’t see it blocking light. No weak interaction that we have observed. However they do cause gravity, so we can see that. All of the proofs of existence are via gravity and relate only to mass — we can’t observe any other properties.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#172
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Physics is wrong on many fundamental levels Physics, when practiced according to the principles of the scientific method, is never wrong (or right). Physical laws try to explain the world around us using mathematical models. Those models can be tested over a certain domain of experimental parameters D. A physicist, when speaking accurately, would never say that a physical law L is correct. They would say that L cor…

No, it is fundamentally wrong in itself, because it went into the wrong direction 100 or so years ago, when physicists ignored the aether model.

It wasn’t ignored it was disproven. Come up with experimental evidence or gtfo.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#173
post #56

I like how we have an article explaining the rationale behind dark matter and the scientific principles that lead to the conclusion that it exists, but most of the threads here are simple declarations that no, they must all simply be wrong or not considering some simple alternative. Can people maybe, just maybe not assume that scientists are idiots or, as once dead commenter puts it, charlatans? If you disagree with…

I think you misunderstand the threads. Dark Matter isn’t a thing it’s a place holder it has many candidates some more probable than others it might be that there is only one class of dark matter it might be that there are multiple classes of dark matter. It might be that all the dark matter will be new forms of matter it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter. It also might be that we won’t…

> it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter

It can’t be. It’s already known that 5/6 ths of all the matter in the observable Universe can’t be baryonic.

> There isn’t a consensus amongst scientists

Only for completely useless definitions of the “concensus.”

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#174
post #21

Another reason may be that dark matter doesn't exist. If the universe consists of 85% of the stuff it would seem that it should be easy to find. Occams razor should apply as usual.

Occam’s razor is not a proof, it’s an optimization path for conducting experiments.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#175
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In seriousness, we can observe the effect, and even map the distribution of the stuff." No, we can measure the dissonance between our best theories and reality. And make a conjecture about 'stuff'.

I'm not a physicist, but my basic understanding of the state of the science tells me you're simply incorrect. We can observe the effect of dark matter via gravitational lensing, and folks much smarter than me have devised studies to exclude differential behavior of gravity at classical and galactic scales. Give me a recent and well supported study indicating that dark matter may be something other than matter, and I'…

As a non-physicist I assume the physicists have thought really hard about this.

But it feels very strange to accept something that:

- is a particle

- doesn't interact with other normal particles (except through gravitation)

- doesn't interact with particles of its own kind

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#176
post #56

I like how we have an article explaining the rationale behind dark matter and the scientific principles that lead to the conclusion that it exists, but most of the threads here are simple declarations that no, they must all simply be wrong or not considering some simple alternative. Can people maybe, just maybe not assume that scientists are idiots or, as once dead commenter puts it, charlatans? If you disagree with…

I’ve written about this here before: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16703193

It feels unintuitive to think about “dark matter” that can’t be directly observed outside of its indirect gravitational effects, but that carries with it an implicit assumption that we should be able to directly observe all the matter in the universe, with the further implication that all the matter in the universe obeys the four fundamental forces that our matter does. Except we already know of other particles that don’t quite do that, like neutrinos, which we can just barely detect directly.

If you take at face value the observation that most observed mass in the universe (via the effects of gravity) is dark, then it appears that our fundamental understanding of reality only describes a minority of the universe and that what’s truly special isn’t the “dark matter”, but rather the “anthropic matter” that we can more easily observe. The dark matter may simply be multiple entirely alien classes of matter with their own fundamental forces, stuff that doesn’t interact with our matter at all outside of gravity and contains, perhaps, observers of its own trying to figure out what the hell we are and whether we exist, since we don’t respond to their fundamental forces.

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know it won't cure cancer? Marie Curie checked out some invisible physics and discovered radioactivity. Now we use it to treat cancer. I suspect that practical outcomes and technologies arising from understanding dark matter will be huge. Also, I think you're missing the point of astronomy. "astronomers" today are generally astrophysicists or planetary scientists, and they are studying fundamental, mostly…

> I suspect that practical outcomes and technologies arising from understanding dark matter will be huge. I doubt it. More than 50 years after discovery of neutrinos, we are yet to find any practical outcomes or technologies.

Neutrinos theoretically can be used for nonproliferation at least :).

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#178
post #56

I like how we have an article explaining the rationale behind dark matter and the scientific principles that lead to the conclusion that it exists, but most of the threads here are simple declarations that no, they must all simply be wrong or not considering some simple alternative. Can people maybe, just maybe not assume that scientists are idiots or, as once dead commenter puts it, charlatans? If you disagree with…

I think you misunderstand the threads. Dark Matter isn’t a thing it’s a place holder it has many candidates some more probable than others it might be that there is only one class of dark matter it might be that there are multiple classes of dark matter. It might be that all the dark matter will be new forms of matter it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter. It also might be that we won’t…

Isn't some weakly interactive massive subatomic particle pretty much the consensus?

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#179
As an uneducated layman I have 2 questions I have failed to understand that continue to confuse me. 1. How can relatavistic time resolve to a instant for which the mass in the universe applies? 2. Why does spacetime not have wave like tensional disortions?

Re: The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you misunderstand the threads. Dark Matter isn’t a thing it’s a place holder it has many candidates some more probable than others it might be that there is only one class of dark matter it might be that there are multiple classes of dark matter. It might be that all the dark matter will be new forms of matter it might be that some or all of it will end up being baryonic matter. It also might be that we won’t…

Isn't some weakly interactive massive subatomic particle pretty much the consensus?

WIMPs are just a whole class of placeholder particles, there is no consensus on anything currently everyone has their own pet theory or theories depending on their field.
Post reply on HN