Live data from Hacker News

The Reason We Haven’t Directly Detected Dark Matter

medium.com

211–220 of 315 posts

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

#211
> And that’s okay! Unless dark matter happens to be of a certain mass with a certain interaction cross-section, none of the designed experiments are going to see it. That doesn’t mean dark matter isn’t real, it just means that dark matter is something else than what our experiments are optimized to find.

That's the rather underwhelming conclusion. And it's wrong insofar the size argument is not certain, but depends trivially on the distance of observation. Otherwise I'd like to know what magical number we are talking about.

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

#212

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…

It can't be baryonic matter, because baryons are made of quarks, which carry electric charge, and therefore interact with light, xrays etc. But we don't see dark matter scattering or absorbing the x-rays & whatnot emitted by stars, nebulae etc. Hence the 'dark' in dark matter. So it has to be made of particles which have no electric charge. The only such longlived particle we know of is the neutrino, but these guys t…

> longlived

Why couldn't it be short-lived?

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

#213
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy.

You can't disprove a philosophy though, you can only try to understand different philosophical models next to each other.

The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning. It was problematic right from the start when mental gymnastics was needed to explain how energy can move through nothing, or how nothing (space) can have properties.

Funny that you mention experimental evidence, as most of physics is basically theoretical nowadays. (That's why it's called theoretical physics, dark matter included)

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

#214
post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should, in and of itself, begin to cast down on the hypothesis even lacking a better alternative. Only if your search was exhaustive: Scooping up a spoonful of ocean is not enough to conclude fish do not exist...

That's really the problem here though. You cannot falsify dark matter, and you cannot prove a negative. Imagine I say there is a 5 headed green deer that weighs 2000 pounds and can speak Gaelic, but it's really good at avoiding being spotted - so good in fact that you can even look at right at it and might not see it. And you can even touch it and not even know you're touching it! What would you could consider an exh…

> You cannot falsify dark matter, and you cannot prove a negative. Imagine I say there is a 5 headed green deer that weighs 2000 pounds and can speak Gaelic, but it's really good at avoiding being spotted - so good in fact that you can even look at right at it and might not see it. And you can even touch it and not even know you're touching it! What would you could consider an exhaustive proof of its lack of existence?

Dark matter isn't like this, though. It's more like an invisible deer that's been eating your grass and shitting on your lawn. At some point you have to say "I might not be able to see it, but the only thing that eats grass and leaves deer shit is ... a deer."

We have the problem that the observable mass of a galaxy is not sufficient to explain the motion of its constituents. As gravity is a pretty well validated theory, it can all be solved if we postulate some matter that we can't see which is still gravitationally affecting those things we can see. Dark matter, in this respect, is no more than the simplest explanation of what's happening via a single item that, if it were true, would explain things.

If you think you have a deer you haven't seen so far eating your lawn, you can put out infrared cameras and all sorts of equipment - and just maybe you might find that someone down the road has been messing with you and is mowing it at midnight. But equally, you might see grass disappear and see shit appear from mid air, and come to the conclusion whatever's doing it is invisible.

Ultimately, it's very conceivable that someone might disprove dark matter. All they have to do is posit some other candidate (eg a modification to gravity), and then predict a result that would follow from that. So far, all the other candidates haven't resulted in a hit, but the field is open for the next great idea to come up with one.

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

#215
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…

> Can people maybe, just maybe not assume that scientists are idiots or, as once dead commenter puts it, charlatans?

Have you met scientists? Or more accurately, PIs? Unfortunately, our system of being awarded grants and academic advancement does not necessarily reward the intelligent, those with the best scientific judgement, and rapidly burns out those who would in the ideal make the best scientists.

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

#216
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy. You can't disprove a philosophy though, you can only try to understand different philosophical models next to each other. The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning. It was problematic right from the start when mental gymnastics was needed to explain how energy can move through nothing, or how nothing (space) can have properties.…

> It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy.

It was disproven based on experimentation[0], no "philosophy" involved.

>The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning

There is no "Einsteinian philosophy," nor does anything in Einstein's theories relate to "meaning" or any lack thereof, in a philosophical sense. Whether you want to believe in aether, or God, or that the Machine Empire built the universe as a VR simulation, E=MC^2 remains true. It can be tested, has been tested has been proven true.

And its probably worth mentioning that the same is true for aether theory, because it also was not a philosophy, but a scientific theory (which was, as mentioned earlier, disproved by experimentation.) The universe is no more or less meaningful or materialistic either way.

>It was problematic right from the start when mental gymnastics was needed to explain how energy can move through nothing.

On the contrary, the mental gymnastics were needed to continue supporting aether theory after experiments and observations continually failed to produce any evidence of it, and the properties aether would need to have to conform to the current cutting edge of science started to become ludicrous.

[0]https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_e...

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

#217
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Scientific skepticism is always healthy and should be welcomed. I strongly disagree. Principled scientific skepticism from practicing scientist and expert is welcome and can contribute. Layman scientific skepticism in hard sciences like physics is worthless and even harmful. No matter how skeptical a layman who reads popular science magazines is, they don't contribute. Only thing we can do is to learn. Our judgment…

Science is about repeatable experimental outcomes that are predicted In advance by theory. Demanding that people believe in a theory that so far has not been supported by the experimental data is more like religion than science.

Which theory is not supported by experimental data? GR? There is hardly any theory with more experimental support.

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

#218
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People somehow feel uniquely qualified to speculate wildly about theoretical physics. It's bizarre in a forum full of technical-minded people.

I don't know what it is about us technically minded people that makes us so confident in our knowledge in so many fields like that (note that I'm including myself in that generalization). It seems to go beyond your garden variety Dunning–Kruger effect. My personal supposition is that most people don't know very much if anything about most subjects, and tech people tend to know a bit more than that quite low average (…

Well said, that captures exactly the effect I was thinking about.

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

#219
post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy. You can't disprove a philosophy though, you can only try to understand different philosophical models next to each other. The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning. It was problematic right from the start when mental gymnastics was needed to explain how energy can move through nothing, or how nothing (space) can have properties.…

> It was "disproven" based upon a different philosophy. It was disproven based on experimentation[0], no "philosophy" involved. >The Einsteinian philosophy represents materialism and a world without meaning There is no "Einsteinian philosophy," nor does anything in Einstein's theories relate to "meaning" or any lack thereof, in a philosophical sense. Whether you want to believe in aether, or God, or that the Machine…

Interesting. I'm not really into physics, so it's helpful to learn about the mainstream position. I know I use sloppy wording.

I still agree with Tesla that empty space can't have any properties though. Things that don't appear logical, probably aren't.

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

#220

Excuse a layman's observation here. The dark matter problem rings as yet another mass-related anomaly we stumbled upon previously but on a nuclear scale. "Mass defect" [1], as appropriately named, is observed on a nuclear scale (whole nucleus mass is less than mass of nucleons that the nucleus is composed of). It is explained with binding energy required to keep the individual nucleons of a nucleus together. That is…

In the Mass defect case, it's not an invisible mass what it is substracted. When some nuclei react to produce another nuclei, the energy of the mass defect is emitted as a gamma ray or as the energy of a fast electron/positron or something else. But all the mass can be found somewhere. It is only missing because you can't keep the gamma ray inside the balance.

There should be a similar effect in a galaxy, because when the stars/gas/whatever get closer they have a small gravitational binding energy. I didn't do the calculations, but I'm sure it is so tiny (relatively) that you can safely ignore it.

For comparison, in the Helium nuclei the difference is only 0.8%, in a galaxy it is (I think) abysmally smaller because the gravity is smaller than the strong force and the stars are much far away than the nucleons. But the dark matter is much bigger than the normal mater, something like x5 or x6. So it's not possible to explain the dark matter with a something that has a tiny effect.

Post reply on HN