81–90 of 92 posts
Help me understand how can something so hard to detect exist in such vast quantity to change the rotation of galaxies.
Why do you think that how hard it is to detect should have anything to do with how much of it there is?
Basic statistics. If you have lots of stuff, the probability of detection should be higher, all else being equal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. Flat earthers want to simplify away the existence of other planets. Antivaxers want to simplify away medicine. Ironically, you are positing a grand unifying theory here by stating that detractors from mainstream opinions just want simpler answer…
"It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest." "I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time" Hey now, don't you think that's a little uncalled-for? It's difficult to determine the attitude of a stranger over the internet via text. "just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, an…
> There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away.
I think that's pretty uncalled for. To me, positing and exploring alternative views of the universe is a noble and interesting goal, even if the currently accepted answers don't get overturned. The generated ideas might still have other value. Maybe there is a piece of it that's salvageable and can be integrated with other concepts. Or it can inspire future ideas. I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths". Do MOND and MOG people make conspiracy YouTube videos about how governments of the world just want you to believe in dark matter and energy to shutter your mind from realizing the truth of their theories? Are they telling people to stop taking chemotherapy and be healed through faith alone instead? Perhaps I'm simply unaware of some nasty behavior, but if not it's pretty rude to lump them in with those other groups.
From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them.
> If the MOND people and the MOG people keep getting things wrong, they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them.
Are you ignoring them? There are a lot of things I don't pay attention to, MOND/MOG included, but I also don't feel the need to demonize them for getting out of bed in the morning and trying out a new idea. Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing?
Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real?
> people are entitled to
> they're still free to persevere just as we're free to ignore them.
I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government, in which case rights and freedoms are primary considerations. We're talking about what things people can do to deserve to be considered unreasonable and be ridiculed, looked down upon, and likely considered harmful to society. I don't think MOND/MOG people qualify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ha, my bad When you write "this is the [..] most common objection laypeople have", I understood "In contrast with the experts who know better" Of course, if as you say, everybody knows that this is a wrong, specifying "laypeople" seems unnecessary
You seem to have a concept that a scientific model is either "true" or "wrong", but that's not case. All models are wrong, but some are more useful than others. It's better to judge models by their ability to describe reality, and that is not a binary property, but a continuous one.
That model would be “true” no? Assuming of course that it’s possible to come up with a list of observations that covers “it all” and we won’t one day see something weird and new that contradicts our theory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that how hard it is to detect should have anything to do with how much of it there is?
> Why do you think that how hard it is to detect should have anything to do with how much of it there is? Basic statistics. If you have lots of stuff, the probability of detection should be higher, all else being equal.
Maybe you mean that this is a sense in which how hard it is to detect has something to do with how much of it there is, which is fine, but the original question is suggesting some much more constraining relationship, where the fact that dark matter is hard to detect and the fact that there is a lot of it poses some kind of apparent contradiction, or at least a puzzle. I don't know of a reason to think that any such contradiction exists.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's really disheartening to see you make these theories into an "us vs them" ego contest." "I think your attitude is a perfect example of why science is said to advance one funeral at a time" Hey now, don't you think that's a little uncalled-for? It's difficult to determine the attitude of a stranger over the internet via text. "just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they can never get it right, an…
I'm specifically referring to: > There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. I think that's pretty uncalled for. To me, positing and exploring alternative views of the universe is a noble and interesting g…
I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me.
"I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths"
I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked.
"From my perspective they're engaging in a theoretical pursuit and you're just taking a dump on them."
You're entitled to your perspective, just as I'm entitled to my perspective that yours is overblown.
"Are you ignoring them?"
Like many things, that's a matter of degree. I'm mostly ignoring, though not so much that I won't occasionally engage the subject on HN.
"I also don't feel the need to demonize them."
I'm not aware of anyone here who's doing that
"Couldn't you just say, "Interesting concept. I doubt it works out for cosmic background radiation, but would make for a cool Star Trek episode". Or just say nothing?"
I could, but I won't, because I don't consider MOND and MOG to be interesting concepts. Why do you want me to say that I do?
"Why do you have to accuse them of being small-minded, simplistic thinkers who are really just motivated by being too dumb to understand the current meta and not unlike harmful idiots that earnestly believe space is just government propaganda and viruses aren't real?"
I'm not.
"I don't think we were talking about what people should be penalized for by the government."
We're not talking about that at all. That's a non-sequitur. I was just emphasizing that what people can do and still be considered reasonable is a matter of personal judgement. It's a matter of personal judgement if I want to scorn the MOND and MOG people. I don't, but I could if I wanted to.
I DON'T scorn them, but I do largely ignore them. I'm ignoring them even now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why do you think that how hard it is to detect should have anything to do with how much of it there is? Basic statistics. If you have lots of stuff, the probability of detection should be higher, all else being equal.
This tells you that the chance of detecting dark matter is higher than it would be if it were only, say, 0.1% of the energy content of the Universe. Which is true, but so what? Maybe you mean that this is a sense in which how hard it is to detect has something to do with how much of it there is, which is fine, but the original question is suggesting some much more constraining relationship, where the fact that dark m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This tells you that the chance of detecting dark matter is higher than it would be if it were only, say, 0.1% of the energy content of the Universe. Which is true, but so what? Maybe you mean that this is a sense in which how hard it is to detect has something to do with how much of it there is, which is fine, but the original question is suggesting some much more constraining relationship, where the fact that dark m…
No detections for abundant stuff over long time frames is not a logical contradiction, but it certainly decreases the plausibility of such a theory relative to alternatives, particularly since we're not expecting any such particle for any other reason (we've tested broad energy ranges). Literally the only evidence we think it exists is incompatibility of our gravitational theory (GR) with observations in a regime whe…
It's of course true that the continued non-detection restricts the available parameter space. But there is no physical principle that says that if something is as abundant as dark matter it really ought to have been detected by now - it's not as though if something is as abundant as dark matter, then it really needs to have some minimal coupling to baryonic matter that the existing experiments are now ruling out. Dark matter can just be really very hard to detect, there's no issue of how that "can be". Things that can change the rotation of galaxies are not obliged to be detectable by 2025.
If your weighting of the relative probabilities is such that you feel you should be going to bat for MOND at this point, that's your prerogative. But it's not related to the question that was asked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm specifically referring to: > There are- things like flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths etc. Proponents of all of the above are looking for a grand unifying cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are confusing and unknown, so people want to just simplify them away. I think that's pretty uncalled for. To me, positing and exploring alternative views of the universe is a noble and interesting g…
"I think that's pretty uncalled for." I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me. "I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths" I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"I think that's pretty uncalled for." I don't share your thoughts on the passage you're specifically referring to. It seems pretty anodyne to me. "I think it's pretty uncalled for to lump them in with "flat or hollow earth, antivax and HIV deniers, homeopaths" I don't share that view, either, but I also don't think they were lumping things together. They were giving examples to answer a specific question I had asked.…
I don't believe this response is based on an honest interpretation of my words, nor meaningfully attempting to grapple with anything I've said. I think everyone reading understands what my point was, so I'm going to exercise my entitlements you keep referring to and wish you a good day.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Definitely more problematic. And Webb only made it more confusing :( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem > Depending on the Planck energy cutoff and other factors, the quantum vacuum energy contribution to the effective cosmological constant is calculated to be between 50 and as many as 120 orders of magnitude greater than has actually been observed, a state of affairs described by physicists…
"problematic" is a matter of degree, and is relative. Inflation is less problematic than some theories (e.g. "magic"). Are there any alternative theories that are less problematic than inflation, and yet also solve the same problems that inflation solves?
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek responding to OP, who was not specific about what they find problematic. The vacuum catastrophe is the area in physics where our explanations explain the smallest amount of our observations. We're very confident in our measurements and understanding at both the large and small scale, and there is essentially no explanation that anyone has any confidence in.
By comparison, observations of dark energy/matter are practically perfectly accurate. It's a single order of magnitude difference from expected observations. We have some half-decent candidates to explain them. Unlike magic, inflation is not a theory in search of an observation. The fact that we don't see inflation is what is so desperately confusing.