I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
11–20 of 92 posts
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
It doesn't, and the problems have only become more problematic over time, but it's the least bad hypothesis that's broadly accepted. I suspect a generational succession is required for new paradigms to be contemplated. There are many researchers proposing simpler, novel, and testable solutions that seem to go unnoticed. For example, I'm a fan of Alexandre Deur's work. He has some simple and elegant solutions that I'v…
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#13Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#14phys.org used to be less of a gosh wow outlet.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#15I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
The Higgs is the same. It is not needed, but it solves the mass problem of the weak force. It is the only scalar field so far that we have observed and it was not clear whether it would exist at all.
Quintessence and sterile neutrinos are also just pieces that make the equations of the world look prettier, but they are also candidates for dark energy and dark matter.
Pauli wrote in his famous letter:
"I agree that my remedy could seem incredible because one should have seen those neutrons very earlier if they really exist. But only the one who dare can win and the difficult situation, due to the continuous structure of the beta spectrum, is lighted by a remark of my honoured predecessor, Mr Debye, who told me recently in Bruxelles: “Oh, It’s well better not to think to this at all, like new taxes”. From now on, every solution to the issue must be discussed. Thus, dear radioactive people, look and judge."
https://icecube.wisc.edu/neutrino-history/1931/01/1931-pauli...
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#16I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
The evidence is in the oscillations of the primordial plasma seen directly in the CMB. These come from the gravity pulling the plasma and pressure pushing back. Without DM they would be too shallow, DM helps by pulling the plasma gravitationally without opposing the fall with pressure of its own.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
Or maybe there's nothing wrong with the equations, they're just the wrong equations. Or based on a fundamentally wrong assumption.
But this just doesnt look nice to eye and the mind. The laws of nature "must" be shorter, more symmetric. Thats why we invented Superstrings which solves everything, but can never be tested...
my 2 ct
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
This is basically the first and most common objection laypeople have. (In fact, this comes up in every single thread on HN about DM, not exaggerating.) Believe it or not, scientists have thought of that as well. They tried, and nothing fits the data as well as the standard model. The trope is so common that there even is an xkcd for it: https://www.xkcd.com/1758/
I mean, when you miss 85% of the stuff, you gotta admit that, perhaps, your stuff is wrong
And yes, it can work even if it is wrong
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#19If you still want to assume that weird things you mathematically need happen whenever you need them for no reason then why not stick with cosmic inflation?
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#20I don't have access to the paper, but it seems to make zero testable predictions and is therefore just mathematical fiction. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. EDIT: the last sentence is "Given sufficient redshift (or, equivalently, time) resolution effected by the redshift slicing, one might just find that the Hubble diagram exhibits jumps in the redshift distance relation, which would be very revealing." So…
I’ve never really understood how just adding extra invisible stuff to make the equations work is justified either? It seems more likely there is simply something wrong with the equations.
So, the alternative that starts being simpler is a single simple equation that works for all galaxies, but allow each galaxy to have varying amounts of stuff in it with mass, but that doesn't interact electromagnetically. Right now, this is the simplest solution we have that fits all observations well.
Is it the right answer? We won't be sure unless we can detect particles that fit the necessary characteristics, and a theory that explains the distribution of these particles in different kinds of galaxies. Unfortunately, the models we have allow these particles to be arbitrarily hard to detect, at the level that we can't really rule them out even if we had a particle accelerator the size of the Earth that didn't find them.
Now, in principle a different equation could exist that has the same solutions as the current equations where they work, and different solutions where they don't work, without adding O(number of galaxies) extra parameters. But just like the dark matter particles, unless we stumble upon it, we can't know if it exists or not.