Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–55 of 55 posts

Re: 'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

#51

Post by naasking »

tekla wrote: post #31
rzz3 wrote: post #28

I’ve always felt like (as neither a mathematician nor a physicist) that “dark matter” is simply just something that suddenly makes a math problem work to model the universe-—and that in reality, that math problem just doesn’t work. Is my theory even _possible_ here, or am I missing something. Really fundamental?

99% of the evidence points to dark matter being a real thing. And yes, many many phds have thought of the "what if we're just completely wrong" aspect. It's not interesting

> 99% of the evidence points to dark matter being a real thing

If you mean particle dark matter, that's an exaggeration:

From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331

Re: 'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

#52

Post by slowmovintarget »

luma wrote: post #30
rzz3 wrote: post #28

I’ve always felt like (as neither a mathematician nor a physicist) that “dark matter” is simply just something that suddenly makes a math problem work to model the universe-—and that in reality, that math problem just doesn’t work. Is my theory even _possible_ here, or am I missing something. Really fundamental?

Dark matter is a proposition put forward to explain observations. It’s not a result of pretty math, it’s the result of a lot of different observations which don’t align with the current math unless you stick something like dark matter into it.

There are pretty math pathways to dark matter, though, and they tend to be more compelling reasons to believe there is something that fits the notion of a particle that we can't detect (or is very difficult to detect). Specifically, bariogenesis calculations, given the current standard model, actually require dark matter--it's the label we've arrived at--as a result. Observations led to the hypothesis, calculations led to more evidence.

Re: 'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

#53

Post by justlikereddit »

dventimi wrote: post #11
justlikereddit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They'll just do what they've done for the past twenty years. Adjust the theory to make it darker, lighter and more nebulous. The end station of dark matter is that "we know it's real because computer models but due to a fluke there's no dark matter in the solar system so we can't detect it".

I can't agree with this. No scientist says, "we know it's real because computer models but due to a fluke there's no dark matter in the solar system so we can't detect it." No scientist says, "we know it's real..." about anything. What scientists say is something like, "so far this theory has not been ruled out by evidence." So far, the theory of Dark Matter has not yet been ruled out by numerous attempts to do so al…

I guess you're not a scientist by your own admission because your entire post is just a big

"Ackshually, we know dark matter is real because computer models"

Though to be honest that's unfair to computer models as dark matter cannot be consistently modeled in a way that lines up with the observable universe.

So your philosophy is more accurately described as

"ackshually we know dark matter is real because it's a fundamental pillar of the scientism dogma, have faith in the cold dark matter that we will never be able to detect"

If we replace "dark matter" with "the will of god" as a mysterious force with arbitrary value and direction, we end up with the very same theory with only a changed name.

That anyone takes it seriously at all does as much good for cosmology as a field as Trump does good for politics.

Re: 'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

#54

Post by chriskanan »

From an outsider's perspective who has studied the history of science, it does feel a bit like the majority of the cosmology community refuses to consider alternative explanations that may also be consistent with observations but don't assume dark matter.

For example, this relativistic MOND-inspired theory is supposedly consistent with observations from CMB and gravitational lensing: https://physics.aps.org/articles/v14/143

There is also Jonathan Oppenheim's body of work on stochastic spacetime which supposedly accounts for these observations without needing dark matter (and it also doesn't need dark energy): https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/mar/09/controversia...

It feels like the community is stuck in dogma, and is in need of a paradigm shift. I'd like to see more effort and funding towards testing alternative theories. I'd also argue strongly for more investment in space telescopes that could further our understanding, especially given how much JWST has already provided evidence against the standard model of cosmology.

About $6 to $11B have been spent trying to detect dark matter over the past 30 years or so, and nothing has turned up. Investing in testing alternatives and efforts to gather data that would help refine hypotheses seems like money well-spent to me.

Re: 'Cosmic radio' detector could discover dark matter within 15 years

#55

Post by dventimi »

justlikereddit wrote: post #53
dventimi wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't agree with this. No scientist says, "we know it's real because computer models but due to a fluke there's no dark matter in the solar system so we can't detect it." No scientist says, "we know it's real..." about anything. What scientists say is something like, "so far this theory has not been ruled out by evidence." So far, the theory of Dark Matter has not yet been ruled out by numerous attempts to do so al…

I guess you're not a scientist by your own admission because your entire post is just a big "Ackshually, we know dark matter is real because computer models" Though to be honest that's unfair to computer models as dark matter cannot be consistently modeled in a way that lines up with the observable universe. So your philosophy is more accurately described as "ackshually we know dark matter is real because it's a fund…

Rubbish
Post reply on HN