Slashdot Mirror
What If Dark Matter Really Doesn't Exist?
sonar67 writes "According to The Economist: 'It was beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria published his theory of epicycles--the idea that the moon, the sun and the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was, however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer, replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws. Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff in the universe--stars, planets, gas clouds and so on--is actually only 4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible, familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects, the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down.'"
So what if it doesn't really exist? We know very little about anything anyway. Trying to find a unified explanation via "String Theory" is spotty at best but at least it "helps".
What's the difference if dark-matter is really just another false theory? In the long run it's not going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference.
Then we're screwed. Life is doomed to die out with the heat death of the universe. We won't go with a bang, but with a whimper...
Actually, with Einstein's relativity, doesn't Ptolemy's theories hold true? Everything is relative to a point of view?
Sorry I didn't ask this question in Modern Physics's class. It was a morning class, and I was sleeping.
Anyone who's read a Brief History of Time would know that any theory that describes something accurately is pretty valid. Whether or not it's elegant is another matter. Most Physicists believe that God created the laws of physics to be elegant and try to iron our the complexities of their theories. If dark matter doesn't exist it pokes a rather large hole in things but going under such an assumption may lead to a more elegant picture of how the universe began, and the nature of matter etc...
Pretty widgets? What pretty widgets?
...but doesn't String Theory tend to suggest that "dark matter" isn't actually dark matter, but instead is gravitation bleeding from other universes? The same theory also explains why gravity in this universe is so weak. Because most of it bleeds of into other universes via the higher dimensions, it's weak enough for you and I to move our limbs.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Are planes going to drop from the sky? Will we be thrown out of orbit? This sounds like the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs floats on air because he never studied the laws of gravity (I know I've probably got the reference wrong, but you get the idea).
Your experiment fits the model, or it doesn't. If it doesn't then one or both need to be tweaked, or scrapped.
A friend of mine is doing his master's thesis on a theory that rather more elegantly explains the phenomenon without having to resort to dark matter, but unfortunately I don't understand enough of physics to know if he's right or not. Something about gravity. (I know, I know....in physics, that really narrows it down, since there's so little about gravity out there...) In any event, I suspect we will find something a little more elegant, just like the article said, because dark matter sounds......well, silly.
-1, "1337" speak
There seem to be growing "hints" that something is wrong with current theories about the very nature and behavior of gravity. This includes alleged dark matter that cannot be identitied, planetary space probes with slight deviations from expected sun "pull" [1], and the fact that there is no identifiable "negative" gravity while the other forces do have negative values or particles.
[1] It was originally thought that heat generated from nuclear fuel cells was "pushing" the probes, but this was mostly ruled out because the heat lessens over time, but the pull was constant.
Table-ized A.I.
Science has been progressing on the basis of constantly proving theories as kludges and bringing about something newer and more real. Imagine if our currently held view was true (before Standard Model), we will never be able to travel faster than light, we'll never harness energy bigger than a hydrogen bomb, we'll never really travel far beyond the Solar system, travel back in time etc.
Before the cannon was invented everyone thought the arrow was the greatest weapon, and few could really predict the power of "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Quantum Mechanics has given us so much hope, of unknown and unexplainable realities, and that far more is possible than we first thought. It means the road before us is much longer, but far more interesting. I'd prefer it that way.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Namaste
There is some intriguing evidence of the existence of strange quark matter, a dark matter candidate, which we've recently published in the Bulletine of the Seismological Society of America. as previously discussed on /.
The term 'Dark Matter' refers to all celestial matter that does not radiate to a significant degree rendering it 'invisible' from this distance at which we view it.
The existence of dark matter should be obvious, since we know of the existance of numerous asteroids in our own solar system, there should be many throughout the universe, but since they don't radiate energy we are unable to see them and thus cannot account for how much mass they contribute. Astronomers, by examining the change in the rate of expansion of the universe (a tricky prospect, prone to errors that I do not completely understand) it is believed that such 'dark matter' makes up roughly 70% of all mass in the universe. Which means that we cannot account for 70% of mass because we cannot see it.
Even stars fall into the category of dark matter, old dead stars, halo stars in other galaxies (those in a sphere around galaxies which we have only recently confirmed exist around our own galaxy) and likely many other astronomical bodies exist that we simply have not observed.
Dark matter has too many connotations in lay-man's speech that are overly misleading. I'm sorry, but Star Trek did not 'get it right' by any stretch.
This is not a sig.
I don't think what Dr. Shanks is proposing is as big of a change as that article makes it out to be. Dark energy has always been a kludge of sorts. He is proposing a theory to define this dark energy factor/constant. It does not radically change the Big Bang Theory, rather it adds to it.
The keynote speaker at the 2003 SIGGRAPH conference in San Diego was the British astrophysicist Anthony Lasenby. He claimed that a new kind of unified Euclidean and hyperbolic geometry could explain acceleration and deceleration in the Big Bang. He was talking at SIGGRAPH because his new unification of geometry is supposed to be more elegant for computer graphics modeling than the current homogeneous coordinates now used. He wrote a book about the geometry. But I have been unable to find a paper relating to the cosmological application on the web.
This is not the first time geometry has been used to unify and simplify physics. Previous examples are Galilean coordinates, special relativity, and general relativity.
Entire careers in physics are going straight down the shitter because of dark matter, because it doesn't exist. From the very first time I read about it, I thought "Geez, this sounds like a 3 year old trying to cover up the fact that he doesn't KNOW the reason why". I really think that's what it comes down to. Very smart people not wanting to admit that they have no idea why they can't explain the lack of visible matter in relation to the effects of gravity.
It's one thing to predict a phenomena without being able to immiedietly prove it. Proof is usually found pretty soon. But kludge's are the black eye of science, and even really bright people can make them (remember Einstein and his cosmological constant?). I think Dark Matter will join that same heap, right on top of Steady State Theory, and it'll happen in my lifetime.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Bringing this up without mentioning M.O.N.D. is irresponsible journalism. MOND (Modification of Newtonian Dymanics) is a theory that simply says that gravity 'decays' at a slightly different rate than expected over astronomical distances. The effects predicted by this theory are spot on to the observed effects that dark energy and matter try to explain.
I googled about found this link, but I first read about it in New Scientist about a year ago.
If he's right, we're in for a bad time starting later this year.
Just like the Theory of Evolution.
Yes, exactly. That evolution occurs is a fact which can be demonstrated. On the other hand, the theory, which tries to explain how evolution works, could be inaccurate/wrong. The theory itself may change many times and might be completely overhauled for some new radical explanation. However, regardless of whether or not we understand the mechanisms behind it, nothing can change the fact that evolution exists.
See: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I may be showing a few gray hairs here, but revolutions in the sciences have occurred in my lifetime with scientists adapting fairly well. The first was the acceptance of Big bang in the late 1950s. Between 1927 and 1955 the Big Bang was just one of several "equally attractive alternative theories" which included the eternal-infinite universe and continuous creation of matter. The microwave background and the abundance of helium brought the big bang into the fore front.
In the 1960s the quark unification of subatomic particle became the predominate theory. Plus quantum electrodyanamics was verfied in high energy experiments to extremely high precision.
Also in the 1960s plate tectonics replaced an up-and-down explanation of geologic forces.
If the evidence suggests a more powerful theory, then physicists will revise their theories again. Science does not stay attached to incorrect theories (though block-headed individuals do).
I may be incredibly naive, but it has always bothered me that we insist on believing there are only 4 types of force in the Universe, each operating on widely different scales. Why can't there be other forces that operate on too large a scale or too small a scale for us to observe? Is the postulate of "dark force" effectively a theory about a fifth type of force?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
Dark Matter will be taught to school children as the Aether of 21st century science.
...Of course, experimental verification of the
Casimir effect has proven that an Aether does
in fact exist, just not the same one that Michaelson
and Morley tested for and disproved.
there are several types of dark matter that have been proposed. some are pretty exotic (rare, hard to observe particles) and some is pretty straight forward.
one type we know to exist merely from looking at the rotational velocity of galaxies. looking at the visible matter (stars) of a galaxy allows one to calculate it's visible mass. stuff on the outer rim of galaxies is moving far too fast to be held in place by the gravitational attraction of the visible matter alone. therefore there must be more mass in the galaxy than we can see. we can't see it so it's called dark matter. nothing exciting, no CMB measurements involved.
on a side note, the existence of anything we observe is inferred from it's effects on other things. when i see something, i infer that it exists from the photons that have bounced off of it and into my eye. gravity is just a valid observational tool as light is.
Please demonstrate one species evolving from another.
Corn.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I don't know about dark energy, but there is more direct proof for the existance of dark matter than background radiation and galaxy clusters.
Take a few neighbouring galaxies for example. We can measure the velocity of stars orbiting the center using Doppler effect, which is pretty accurate. The problem is that all stars circle the center in approximately same time while gravitational therory predicts that those stars that are on the rim of the galaxy should take longer to make one orbit. That can only be explained with a large halo of dark matter that sourunds the galaxy and holds more mass than the visible (light-emitting) matter in the galaxy.
Compton scattering can't explain that.
My recollection of the talk is bit fuzzy, by Lasenby defines an extension to Cartesian analytical geometry consisting of the linear combinations of perpendicular, parallel and infinite unit vectors. Zeroing the the latter two gives conventional analytical geometry. Another choice of coefficients gives the hyperbolic geometry, best illustrated by some of Escher's olizard paintings. Lasenby claims if you give the cosmos this mixed geometric basis, with a slight non-Cartesian component, then that will explain the change in the Big Bang expansion rates.
On the other hand, some physicists claim "Geometry Equals Force", so augmenting geometry is creating new forces, and we are back to dark energy again.
On the other hand, my brain may have blown a fuse hearing these new ideas and I restated them incorrectly.
The original article makes the parallel argument that theory keeps adding cruft to fit the current observations, just as adding epicycles on epicycles was required to account for the Earth-centered theory. So far, so good. However, cosmology has now fairly completely accounted for the observations at this point, and has no more tooth fairies to fall back on; that is, no more epicycles are waiting in the wings, nor are more required.
This line no sig
In particular, dark matter, though incredibly mysterious, is probably on firm enough ground that it will withstand a series of challenges. Galactic rotation curves and measurements of cluster temperatures both give very strong evidence for dark matter on vastly different scales; in addition, it is difficult (OK, fine: downright impossible in standard Einsteinian gravity) to get any kind of structure to form *at all* in the universe if one is only allowed to use the visible matter. The precise ratio of dark to visible is definitely up in the air; and, of course, there are competing models that modify gravity -- if these matured enough (they may already have -- I haven't kept up) to make predictions on a wider range of scales, they might work as well.
Indeed, a lot of gravity modifications (extra dimensions, etc.) behave *phenomenologically* as if there was dark matter -- so all the effort we've put into simulating dark matter may not be in vain after all, even if Einsteinian four dimensional spacetime is not the name of the game.
In contrast, indeed, is the exact count of the "baryons" (ordinary matter.) I would be very surprised if we were off by a factor of (lets be ultra-conservative here) five in the baryon number, which is constrained very well by big bang nucleosynthesis, whose predictions remain in the "ordinary" realm of nuclear explosions. Something we know a little about.
The real mystery is "dark energy." There, the evidence is a lot shakier. It rests on a few pillars. There is a theoretical bias that wants the universe to be flat (so that the missing mass-energy is made up for by some dark energy component that doesn't cluster and affect our galactic rotation curves.) There are some really excellent (but difficult) measurements of universe acceleration, a signature of dark energy, from people who observe distant supernovae (these provide "standard candles" that allow you to measure distance given an apparent brightness.)
Finally, there are the CMB measurements, which provide a similar kind of distance measurement, but are open to alternative interpretations (instead of measuring apparent brightness, they measure apparent angular size -- but it is perhaps possible, if you squeezed around, to construct a different model where the apparent angular size is squished in odd ways.)
And then there are a host of other measurements that one might call more "marginal" (without prejudice to the people who work very hard to do them -- I aspire to be one of them.) They rely on a few more astrophysical assumptions, and perhaps would not convince the slashdot skeptic. (My profound apologies if I've missed out someone's awesome measurement.)
One big "trouble" is that we haven't seen good evidence for a very particular signal that one would associate with the simplest model of dark energy. (This is the "low quadrupole" -- the news stories you read about finite universes are from people who, in part, are motivated by the desire to explain this low quadrupole signal by other means.) Of course, it is entirely possible to make more exotic dark energy models that don't show this signal (I've coauthored a paper on one such model), but that missing signal, gosh, damn.
The Economist is usually good with science articles, but it really kind of missed the point on this one. Shanks et al. are not "bringing down the whole edifice"; they are pointing out what they see as a possibly problematic signal in the CMB data. This may inspire in some a little additional -- and very healthy -- skepticism about the dominant models. But it is important to mention that there really is no "dark energy mafia"; nearly any astrophysicist worth his or her salt would drop dark energy like a stone if the evidence started piling up, and many, many astrophysicists keep a hand in alternate models that don't rely on dark energy because, hey, what a scoop that would be.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
I've looked at it this way for years: Say there happened to be a race of creatures that lived on the nucleus of an atom, held to their home by, say electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is their dominant force. They know about the strong and weak forces, but they know nothing about gravity. This race has developed the ability to look out into "space" and they can see lots of other atoms, all of which obey the laws with which they are familiar. Looking out further, they see huge groups of atoms (electrically neutral objects, such as, say rocks) that behave in ways that are contrary to the laws of electromagnetism. If they followed our path, they might be forced to posit the existance of invisible charges or Dark Charges that are responsible for the movement of these objects.
Now, we happen to know that electrically neutral objects obey gravity, but when we look out and see large groups of objects acting contrary to gravity, it never occurs to us to theorize the existence of a force that we don't experience in our regime.
Maybe there are forces "above" gravity, just as gravity is above electromagnetism.
Don't blame me, I voted for Durga.
The same is true with almost any domesticated animal. For pete's sake the entire science of animal husbandry is application of Evolution, just under our control.
Of course, our efforts in domesticating animals show that one force seems to be required to really make evolution work properly: a regulator. Someone who reviews what's good, what's bad, and what is really cool, though unexpected.
Next time some god-boy goes on a rant about how evolution doesn't exist, quote the parable of the Wheat and the Tares. In it Jesus talks about how God can't really tell what is useful and what is not until it has had a chance to develop. Once it is clear what is good, and what is not, someone comes by and clears the crap out.
Evolution by any other name to me.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
"Do you really have to prove God exists before you'll believe?"
;)
As a matter of fact, yes.
Some people get by fine on faith and that works for them. I've known many happy faithful people and I sometimes even envy that quality in them.
But that just isn't how I work. I look at the world with an innate need to figure it out. This makes it impossible for me to take any religion literally.
I suspect this is common with many geeks.
This is some good reading if you want to go on this tangent:
h tm l
.html - not sure why it's not coming throught correctly in this preview)
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pc/dmt.
(that is a
If all the herring gulls in North America and/or Asia were to die due to some natural disaster (or to human interference), the white herring gull and lesser black-backed gull in Britain would become different species. In a sense this is a situation where the gulls have in most ways already evolved into two species, and could readily become two species given particular natural events. This type of species is called a ring species.
Alexander Shulgin's writeup of the "Infinitely Old Universe" idea (in place of the Big Bang) seems more poignant than ever....
Listen to what I say, not what I mean...
> Evolution, OTOH, has never been demonstrated or shown in an experiment. To demonstrate evolution would require watching a planet from start to finish, which we have not yet done.
Sorry to inform you, but science allows indirect evidence as well.
> Something not taught in school that should be is that evolution is dependent upon natural selection, but not the other way around. The earth could have been populated by God/Aliens/someone creating species in a test tube somewhere and populating the earth. Natural selection would just as easily occur with this hypothesis.
You seem to be confused about the subject matter. It is correct to say that it doesn't matter whether gods/aliens/naturalforces/blindchance created life, because evolution could operate on the result regardless of the origin. All evolution requires is imperfect self-replicators.
> BTW, I'm a scientist
You certainly don't talk like a scientist. What is your field, and where can we find a list of your publications?
> WRONG. There is no such thing as proving a theory right (i.e. as truth).
And a real scientist would know that scientists don't spend their time trying to "prove" theories right. Rather, scientists look for explanations for observed phenomena, and theories are the product of that endeavor.
> Evolution is so mathematically improbable that I'm surprised that most scientists just accept it.
Can you show us the math on that?
> It's a great theory to explain things right now (which is why we use it), but there's a good chance it will probably be proven false someday.
Can you show us the math on that, too? (I'll gladly accept "it may be proven false someday", but you are asserting more than that, even with your double qualification. What are the chances that the theory of evolution will be proven to be false some day?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
That is an empty distinction. The point of science is to gather evidence that bears on the truth or falsity of an important outstanding question, and then sort out the proposed answers (hypotheses) by whether they anticipate the evidence correctly or not. Call it a process of disproof if you want, but proof (in a legal or probabilistic, if not mathematical, sense) is certainly part of the process as most scientists practice it.
These new hypotheses are currently not as well supported as the dark matter/energy hypothesis, but that doesn't make them a "distraction".
They may be a distraction to researchers (Fermi: "Not even wrong") if (a) they are internally inconsistent; (b) they are poorly formulated so as to be untestable or unfalsifiable; or (c) they fail to take account of the broad range of our current knowledge of the universe (e.g., General Relativity and its role in cosmology). I'm not saying that any of these are true in this case - just that some theories really are not worth the time it takes to become acquainted with them.
More importantly, what I was trying to say is that these theories (and the papers that purportedly back them up) are a distraction to the great majority of Slashdot readers, who - as you will gather by reviewing the posts to this story - are still unfamiliar with the basic outlines of our understanding of the universe, which has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last few years. You misinterpreted my closing paean to the consensus cosmology as a call to navel-gazing among the astonomy community, which truly would be silly. We are much better off formulating and testing new hypotheses - and we are! - than sitting on our laurels. Among other arguments, laurel-sitting is a very poor justification for the bright shiny new billion-dollar satellites that we want.
-renard
It seems to me that a central tenet of Christianity is the Good News itself -- that an actual guy actually taught a bunch of people how to be good to each other, and actually came back from the dead. That is (at least in principle) a physical, provable proposition, and finding things like the shroud of Turin is a big part of that. Other religions work the same way -- there're a core set of beliefs that hold in the physical world, and that are thought to be supporting evidence for some metaphysical beliefs.
It also seems that this thread is pretty far afield from the topic of cosmology. Religion and physical cosmology are somewhat orthogonal.
That's why it's not enough just to learn Science. Science History lends a crucial perspective on how ideas have evolved over the centuries, and how we've arrived at where we are, and where we may be going tomorrow.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So the question must be raised *what* would the Universe look like if /.ers had had a billion or more years to work on it? Yes, I know that many of you will argue that it should not look much different but you have not run the numbers as I have on planetary disassembly times. Nor do you understand the limits of nanotechnology to the extent that I do.
I've tried to explore and address some of these questions in my papers about Matrioshka Brains as has Dr. Sandberg in his exploration of the various types of Jupiter Brains.
These are not new concepts -- they have been discussed on the Extropians list for perhaps a decade. There are a few good astronmers and astrophysicists who discuss these ideas but to a large extent mainstream science seems stuck in the paradigm that the universe simply must be dead.
Until we deal with whether or not that is a fundamental misconception we may be plagued by concepts like Dark Matter and Dark Energy that could be resting on very questionable evidence.
Robert
Other people have explained what the errors are in saying a Ptolmaic system or Brahe's system is "mathematically equivalent." I'll just add a few things- first, the real breakthrough in celestial mechanics was not the idea of Copernicus that planets revolve around the sun- some people had thought that for a long time- but rather Kepler's theory that the planetary orbits are ellipses. Nobody had taken heliocentrists seriously before Kepler, since a heliocentric model with circular planetary orbits actually conflicted with observation to a much greater extent than did the Ptolemaic system.
In general, the background of the scientific revolution from Copernicus to Newton was the opposite of what it is often taken to be- a revival of observation and experimentation. The Scholastic system, being based on Aristotelianism, put plenty of emphasis on observation. One of the major catalysts for this scientific revolution was rather the appearance of translations of Plato and a subsequent move to attempt to rise above the particulars of the world to the Forms. I think it was Galileo who wrote to one of his associates that he admired and labored to emulate the resolution of men like Copernicus who could, ignoring the input of their senses, contradict these senses in describing how things OUGHT to behave according to ideal laws.
One thing about the trouble astronomers had with the Catholic Church which is often ignored is that it was a real surprise. For almost a millenium before the Counter-Reformation, the Church was, on the whole, the greatest advocate of learning the world has ever known, though this advocacy had perhaps been on the decline for some time. The picture of a pre-Reformation Church working constantly to supress knowledge and free thought comes from the same sources of misinforming tradition which bring you the 2nd-grade Columbus Day elementary school assembly skits where a kid playing Columbus explains to his astounded peers that he thinks the world is round. (Very few people had believed the world was flat for quite some time, and the reason Columbus ventured west when nobody else would was because his calculations of the circumference of the world were way off; the Greeks had been very nearly right, and nobody had thought to try sailing west because crossing an ocean the width of the Atlantic, Pacific, and North America combined, without any places to stop, would have been far too risky to attempt at least until the advent of steam power.)
Questioning universal gravitation strikes a chord with me -- after all, if QED (quantum electrodynamics) governs the universe at the smallest scales, why not some other modification of gravity for the larger scales?
Rather competent means just that. I was merely illustrating that one does not have to wait until they are a college senior/junior to grasp the material. A great majority of the general public believes that this material is simply beyond their grasp, which is a shame. One can be introducted to the basic concepts of SR with some knowledge of calculus. As for a true understanding of the material, you are correct, I do not have it. Yet I do have a basic grasp of it which IMHO will serve to enhance my further studies.
As for Canada, that is great. Unfourtunatly, high school education in America is abysmal. Some have no physics what so ever in high school, others have non-calculus based physics. Thus, they often believe that a basic understanding of these concepts is best left to individuals in ivory towers, which is again a shame.
-Devil's advocate- Could it be that dark matter doesn't exist in any form, but we have some incorrect presumptions?
For instance we believe that gravity is a distortion of space and is thusly incompatible (except via string theory) with our other friendly forces. Has there been much effort to characterize this distortion with actual numbers? I wouldn't be to surprised if gravity could be represented by our other forces through a distorted space.
As a specific question, have we shown gravity to exist to the amount we expect the nanoscopic scale, such as two single protons, or two single neutrons? Again it wouldn't be surprising if gravity came from proton/neutron interaction, and the masses we determined for both actually don't make sense on the single boson level.
I don't mean to be any sort of a science troll, I just haven't heard of this kind of thing being addressed.
Well, it turns out that parent was responding to this:
which is certainly an attack -- it's a charge of dishonesty. Mild by /. standards, but also typical fare for this site. So, yes, there was an attack.
I think this severely misunderstands the state of Christian thought. If you look at the work of, for example, J.P. Moreland or Alvin Plantinga, you will see that they do not appeal to God as an explanation for the inexplicable. Instead, they believe in God because they believe that the evidence points firmly in that direction.
I teach science: H.S. Chem and Physics. I have a driving desire to learn, and I try to spark in my students a driving desire to learn and to analyze carefully, critically, and honestly. I also am an evangelical Christian (to use a loaded, ill-defined term) with an (additional) academic background in theology. I guess I would fit your description of the scientist who does believe in a God. So I have no problem with your suggestion that science and Scripture might converge on "God" as the "final answer to the Theory of Everything", and I heartily endorse your suggestion that science can give us a greater understanding of God. Indeed, I teach my students to think that way.
The problem I have is that you portray scientists as neutral pursuers and purveyers of knowledge. They aren't. It turns out (speaking philosophically here) that everyone has a prior notion of the answer to the "does God exist?" question. This is why the question has been and continues to be unresolved philosophically. Our prior judgment on that question entirely colors our judgment as to what "counts" as proof of God's existence. It's a vicious circle, and philosophers have been unable to untangle it.
Scientists are no exception to the rule, and it comes out in all sorts of ways. For instance, take Richard Dawkins, chair of the "Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford. He has written extensively promoting evolutionary thought. So far, a seemingly neutral scientific question, right? But his books contain not only an scientific defense of evolution, but also several defamatory comments about Christianity. It turns out that he integrates his scientific worldview with his atheistic worldview, and uses his position to promote both simultaneously. And so it goes in the world at large. No man is a neutral player on the "God question"; no evidence is ever evaluated without a priori judgments as to how much proof is enough proof. That is where "faith" comes in. For careful thinkers, Faith is not a substitute for evidence. Instead, it is a willingness to evaluate a certain amount of evidence in favor of God's existence, over agains
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
I always like this question and I think Descartes' answer is a cop out.
In truth I can't. He said "I think therefore I am" but when you read his whole argument you see that it goes in a circle.
The best I can do is say that it doesn't matter. I do think. The fact that I think may not mean that I exist (it could be your caffeine addled mind thinking I'm thinking). But it doesn't matter from my perspective. My only option is to go about my life assuming that I exist until I'm proven wrong. What is the alternative?
To develop on this a little, what if our current laws of nature are not fundamental but merely a phase? They could change in the future based on some larger circumstance outside our present sphere of perception. The fact that from our point of view the universe looks as if it is and has been behaving under a set of coherant rules may be merely a coincidence. All our so-called natural laws could simply go away, leaving formless, meaningless chaos. But this is a theme fairly commonly explored in science fiction.
Fortunately, in my humble opinion, the formless, meaningless chaos must be truly infinite, and so 'contain' an infinite number of sets of coherent systems. Any of these systems including ours will be finite by definition.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Again there have been attempts to prove the existance of these particles, mainly involving mine shafts and a lot of water, and again there have been no conclusive results.
This sounded too interesting to not look up:
Mine Shafts and a lot of water
Organization running experiment
Ah, so first you make a couple of claims that are based only on conjecture, one of which actually works against your claim; then you realize they are not convincing enough, so you close the argument by saying "And if you don't agree with this, you are ignorant?" Silly you, don't you realize the sun revolves around the earth? It's scientific fact. And the smallest possible particles are protons, neutrons, and electrons, all of which are indivisible? This gets back to the post that started this thread; you must not cling too tightly to what are thought as scientifically proven facts. If you do, soon you lose track of why you think a certain thing, and only focus on the fact that you do believe it.
There's a little concept I came up with, called "The Theory of Evolution of The Theory of Evolution." It is possible to take the identical principles that evolutionists claim shaped living species, and apply them to the development of the theory itself. You take a stress; in this case, perhaps a desire to prove the concept of creation wrong, for whatever reasons. So you float a few arguments, look for examples that support your point. Some of these arguments and examples will be thrown out, or disproved, so you move to arguments that require more and more effort to throw out and disprove. Over many years, and across many researchers and scholars, a gradual building of knowledge is gathered. Bones are assembled, animals are conjectured from these bones, dating methods developed. And all the while, the theory itself is evolving: a certain nook in a fossil looks slightly different if the viewer assumes evolution is taking place. The more firmly set that theory becomes, the bolder the scientist can become in making assertions that are based on assumed evolutionary principles. Eventually, the theory itself is no longer subject to questioning. The words "probably" and "might have" become read as "definitely" and "did." Theories that were easy to disprove fell away, and the ones that survive are based on thousands of observations, each successively building upon the next with the assumption of evolution coloring how the results are perceived, and those results applied to future observations. At the end, you have evolved an entire system that is based on a single belief, but that belief has influenced so many successive observations that everything is taken as an item of proof. Unfortunately, you are no longer left with a simple way to prove the theory; all that is left is blind faith and name-calling, as you have shown here.
...
This is a possibility that is NOT being ignored by the astrophysics community. There have been several attempts (presumably like the one you reference, though I haven't checked it out) to modify gravity theories much like you say. Up close they predict the orbits of planets and such very well, but over longer distances they change the behavior of gravity as to match some of the observations. The problem with them thus far is that they fail to explain every observed system, such as galaxy interactions and clustering. They can only get some parts to work, not all. This doesn't imply, however, that there is no such theory, it is entierly possible that we haven't thought of it yet.
Several decades ago, the Big Bang theory wasn't universaly accepted by the cosmology community. Another thoery, the Steady State Theory had about as big of a following. Over time though, holes and failed predictions started showing up, and they kept mounting and mounting, while the Big Bang theory kept matching new observational discoveries. It has been modified now and then (like by adding inflation), but the basic concept is still the same, and now it is thought to be true (or at least the general idea) by the vast majority of cosmologists. The mountain of observational evidence is impossible to ignore. The weaker theory has been weeded out, and the consistent one has thrived.
Maybe a new theory of gravity or some other theory will come forth that explains the same thing that Dark Matter does, and maybe it will have correct predictions where dark matter fails. If that is the case then Dark Matter will be all but cast aside. It seems extremely unlikely though, since several entierly different sources have had the same predictions for dark matter / dark energy breakdowns. Observations of type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies gave the first major hints that the universe expansion is accelerating. It gave values for the relative amounts of dark matter and dark energy. A totaly unrelated observation (WMAP) of something with no relationship to type Ia supernovae gave effectivly the same results. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis theory starts with very few premises and derives a the same ratios of various mass particles that WMAP and other more conventional observations show. It would take something truly extrodanry to overthrow this theory.
But who knows? It can still happen. The community really is open to it, if a good theory comes forth, though they have gotten comfortable where they are.
Don't Bogart the fish sticks
Or, an acronym, actually.
MOND = Modified Newtonian Dynamics
It's one of those theories that sounds totally crackpot when you first hear it (and, admittedly, has some problems), but many would argue that it's no weirder than a bunch of dark stuff that we know nothing about. The destain with which astronomers and physicists view MOND is quite surprising, since they are asking us to be believe that (something like) 95% of the matter in the universe is composed of some sort of weird, non-Baryonic particle (most people favor WIMPs over MaCHOs now-a-days).
Anyway, just food for thought.
I couldn't tell if you were experimenting with poor-man's cryogenics or looking for the orange sherbet.
"My guess is because there is precious little left to explain, as most of our daily life has been easily described by science."
I don't like to post in this kind of language but: WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING WHEN YOU POSTED THIS?!?!?!?
All of our scientific explanations are just a glossy finish over a gaping chasm of ignorance.
If we truly understood our surrondings the scientific method would be irrelevant. Experiments would be unnecessary, we would know the outcomes before we started. Since we don't understand we fiddle with this and fiddle with that and observe the workings of the mystic algorythm and try to draw conclusions.
We observe and infer about the very big and the very small and shamefully think ourselves the wiser. How contradictory that we constantly argue about how the world and humanity got here, and we haven't even progressed beyond the abilities of single celled organisms when it comes to organic chemistry. We don't even understand ourselves, physically, "psychologically," or spiritually.
How is it that even a three year old can quickly surpass the limits of human knowledge with a single sylable mantra of "why?" Sit down with a monomanicaly inquisitive child sometime, and if you can overcome your frustration you will realize that the basis of that feeling is the irony and embarrasment of a child reminding you that your understanding is an illusion.
In the future, when you start to think that mankind has made some vast and commendable stride in some field just think about a few things. First, think "How much do we truly know about the universe?" Then think, "If we knew everything about the universe, how different would our approach to this current subject be?" Apply this to new knowledge and discoveries, and to old. Meditate on it for awhile and maybe some of the ingrained human arogance will start to fall away.
Sheesh man, even the article we are posting under is lamenting the uncertainty of our macrocosmic understanding. And people think that the "givens" in our realm of knowledge are any differnt? My bet is that EVERYTHING we think we understand is truly vastly different that we currently believe. Fortunately, time and history are on my side in this. If you look at the past timeline, just about everyone has been wrong so far...this is why the ancient Egyptians didn't have micropocessors. If you project the future timeline I think it will be more of the same.
I find it sad that we are permeated by the mystery of our universe and yet we constantly seem to find ways to ignore the utter splendor and mystery of all things.
But hey, who am I, right? Nobody. But, just maybe you can take someone else's word for it...
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Socrates
Have a nice day, and try to remember that we live in an amazing, beautiful, mysterious playground, full of unknowns, unfathomables, and things that man was not meant to know (tm).
What's the matter officer? I have obeyed all of your silly Earth laws!
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I'd hardly call this article superb. By focusing on a problem with clusters and ignoring independent evidence for dark energy from supernovae, problems with MOND, and expectations from particle physics of at least some dark(ish) matter, it seemed to be saying "The very foundations of science are shaking, and you heard it here first!". I'd call that sensationalism. Of course, I'm being sensationalist too and exaggerating a bit.
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
The purpose of a scientific theory is to give the best - and simplest - explanation that fits the obsevations, within the limits of current knowledge. In this respect Ptolemaios'es theory was good: maths with equations, algebra, differential theory etc didn't exist, only simple geometry. He formulated a theory within this framework that actually fitted fairly well; and as it turned out, the reality wasn't radically different. Planets do (almost) move on cirles, and seen from Earth, they do indeed (almost) move on epicycles.
As for dark matter - the evidence suggests that something holds the universe together, something we haven't been able to detect so far. Ie. there is some unexplained gravity (~ space-time curvature) in the universe; that gravity is equivalent with mass is a fundamental concept in modern physics. All in all, I'd say that the existence of dark matter is beyond reasonable doubt.
As for the scientists that have their doubts - that's what a scientist get paid for: having doubts. Apart from that - there are also people with a scientific education, who never the less reject the evolution theory and believe the world was created in 6 times 24 hours. What is good science is not determined by whether there are some sceptics, but whether it stands up to continued scrutiny by large numbers of scientists.