phys.org used to be less of a gosh wow outlet.
The amount of ads I see there in Chrome is stunning.
Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
21–30 of 92 posts
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#22Earlier 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 wonder what the motto was before Einstein suggested a new model.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe there's nothing wrong with the equations, they're just the wrong equations. Or based on a fundamentally wrong assumption.
The equations that we already have are sufficient to describe the universe to 99.9999999% but they are a hodge podge of several different theories that all work very very well in their respective regime. QM + GR + Lambda CMD + ... 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…
QM and GR are mutually exclusive: if one is right, the other must be wrong (of course, it's very much still possible that both are wrong). If you use GR to predict the movement and interactions of photons in a medium, it's just wrong. If you use QM to predict the movement of light around a huge body, especially a black hole, it's just wrong. And what's worse, there is no limit or term you can add such that you could say "QM works only for objects up to size X, GR works for objects larger than size Y".
Also, we're nowhere near explaining 99.99999999% of the behaviors we see in the universe. In fact, we're not even able to explain 6% of the things we see in cosmology - as is often explained, dark matter accounts for 27% of all energy in the universe, and dark energy for 68% - and we have no ideas what these actually are, if they exist at all.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe there's nothing wrong with the equations, they're just the wrong equations. Or based on a fundamentally wrong assumption.
The equations that we already have are sufficient to describe the universe to 99.9999999% but they are a hodge podge of several different theories that all work very very well in their respective regime. QM + GR + Lambda CMD + ... 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…
> laws of nature "must" be shorter
Coming at this from philosophy of science rather than as a physicist, I feel those quotes around "must".
I think you also recognise how that might be a sort of "fundamentally wrong assumption".
Imagine your words replayed 50 years in the future, not on physics but applied tp the problem of general AI/sentience.
"The equations that we already have are sufficient to describe human
thought to 99.9999999% but they are a hodge podge of several
different theories...."
"Why on Earth are you looking for a *singular*, unified explanation
of human experience?"
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
The equations that we already have are sufficient to describe the universe to 99.9999999% but they are a hodge podge of several different theories that all work very very well in their respective regime. QM + GR + Lambda CMD + ... 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…
QM and GR are mutually exclusive: if one is right, the other must be wrong (of course, it's very much still possible that both are wrong). If you use GR to predict the movement and interactions of photons in a medium, it's just wrong. If you use QM to predict the movement of light around a huge body, especially a black hole, it's just wrong. And what's worse, there is no limit or term you can add such that you could…
Well, actually we have developed a very good feeling when to apply which theory. From subatomic particles to the large scale structure of the universe the right theories applied give us excellent results. lambda CDM models very well fit to the observed structures and the standard model describes all the particles that have been observed so far. We are desparately looking for effects that are unexplained by the standard model in particle physics so far. That is the reason why it is so difficult to justify yet another particle accelerator at CERN.
my 2 cent
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
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/
A common objection, and for good reason: just because you do not know the right model does not make your bad model somehow true 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
Nobody said it's "true", whatever that even means for a model. The claim is that it's the best anyone has been able to come up with. And not for a lack of trying.
Everybody also acknowledges that there are issue with DM, it's just that every other known model has bigger issues.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#27Earlier 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…
That paper focuses on rotation curves, like all DM skeptics. I can only assume because this problem is understandable with high school level math. But that's neither the only nor the best evidence for DM. If your new hypothesis doesn't even mention the CMB power spectrum, it's not really worth listening, sorry. And to be taken seriously, it has to explain at least most of the data. DM does that, everything else does not.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#28phys.org used to be less of a gosh wow outlet.
Really? Since I first noticed links to pyhs.org on HN, I have always wondered why it is not permanently banned as a link target.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
That paper focuses on rotation curves, like all DM skeptics. I can only assume because this problem is understandable with high school level math. But that's neither the only nor the best evidence for DM. If your new hypothesis doesn't even mention the CMB power spectrum, it's not really worth listening, sorry. And to be taken seriously, it has to explain at least most of the data. DM does that, everything else does…
The phrase "Dark Matter" literally means we don't know and therefore until something testable is postulated and tested (to be fair i believe some candidates have fallen by the wayside over the years as measurement has improved), it's principally equivalent to plugging in a giant X and giving it properties not unlike Fermi's famous elephant curve fitting comment.
Re: Researcher proposes model replacing dark energy/matter to explain universe
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
A common objection, and for good reason: just because you do not know the right model does not make your bad model somehow true 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
Nobody said it's "true", whatever that even means for a model. The claim is that it's the best anyone has been able to come up with. And not for a lack of trying. Everybody also acknowledges that there are issue with DM, it's just that every other known model has bigger issues.
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