Slashdot Mirror
The Search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy
mlimber writes "The New York Times Magazine has a lengthy article on dark matter and dark energy, discussing the past, present, and future. 'Astronomers now realize that dark matter probably involves matter that is nonbaryonic ["meaning that it doesn't consist of the protons and neutrons of 'normal' matter"]. And whatever it is that dark energy involves, we know it's not 'normal,' either. In that case, maybe this next round of evidence will have to be not only beyond anything we know but also beyond anything we know how to know.'"
..."in-transit" energy from 100,000,000,000 stars?
...large amounts of completely non-reflective dust and asteroids?
...a side effect of over-estimating the size of the universe? (i.e. stars like our 5 billions light years away don't exist anymore)
/real questions
//just curious..
+&x
Very large bodies don't behave according to Newton. Very small bodies behave according to the rules of quantum physics, so it's clear that one law doesn't regulate every case. Dark matter/energy are just a fudge factor because we can't explain what happens without them, but that doesn't prove that they exist. All that is proven is that we don't understand what is happening.
Please move along.
Best Windows Freeware
"Since the invention of the telescope four centuries ago"
I didn't know telecopes were that old. Is this a typo, and didn't they mean decades instead? If not, what did ancient telescopes do?
FooBarWidget, meet Galileo: Widely credited as the inventor of the modern telescope, in 1609.
Though, as with all major developments in human history, some accounts have him as merely improving on preexisting tech, whether copying the work of Lippershey from 40 years before, or even the possibly MUCH older designs of the ancient Persians.
So no, not a typo.
On the contrary, very large bodies are extremely well-approximated by Newton, as it is the slow-velocity, weak field limit of General Relativity. There is already good photographic evidence for dark matter in the form of colliding galaxies (do your Google work), and current observational evidence points pretty strongly towards dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. While it's true we don't know what that means, it's not just a fudge factor.
To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)
That's an educated opinion, if I've ever heard one.
Karma police, arrest this man. He talks in math. He buzzes like a fridge. He's like a detuned radio.
If dark matter makes up most of the mass in the universe, wouldn't the kind of matter we're familiar with be the abnormal kind?
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
This could all be accounted for by dark matter save for the observations of Type 1A supernovae which indicate accelerating expansion, and this requires domination by a state of matter with negative pressure, and this is what's been coined dark energy.
To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)
Heh. Well, then, just send them to the Randi foundation which still has a 1 million dollar prize for anyone who can prove anything like that. The requirements so far have been reasonable too, usually along the lines of having a scientific double-blind test. Nothing you wouldn't expect in normal science. Altering probabilities is even more straightforward, since then you just have to take a large enough sample and do some elementary statistics. So you'd think that if ESP or mind-over-matter or whatever floats your fantasy boat was that proven and working, someone would claim the prize already. But, nah, suspiciously so far what we've had were:
- bullshitters arguing about how unsound scientific testing is, and why they won't take part in it (sorry, if something is only perceived when the test subjects are told and persuaded what they should perceive, then it's probably just make-belief.)
- lame stage magician tricks
- various versions of some global conspiracy to suppress them (funny how noone suppressed them before, then. You'd think the conspiracy would then stop them from publishing books and making faked movies about it too, not just stop them from taking part in a controlled experiment.)
Etc.
Plus, Randi isn't the only one who came up empty so far. What fraudsters are quick to tell you, as if it were some proof of ESP existing, is that both the USA and the USSR were interested in it during the cold war. That much is true. Unsurprisingly, since for example transmitting a message to a submarine by a mean that's (A) not blocked by water or rock, hence receivable from any depth or hole, and (B) impossible to intercept, is any army's or navy's wet dream. What they conveniently ommit there is that both the USA and the USSR, and a few others for that matter, failed to get any results with it.
By contrast, the people with these physics hypotheses tend to actually have some verifiable/falsifiable data, and they give it to you up front. If they did just bullshitting and handwaving like the ESP gang, we wouldn't take them seriously either.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Here is an excellent article by Sean Carroll of the California institute of Technology that explains why all the suggestions of the parent post may not be correct.
Basically, what it says is that if two large clusters of galaxies went right through each other, and dark matter was really like the normal matter in the way the parent post suggests, we would get a different result from what would happen if dark matter was for real. Astronomers have discovered one such system and this provides conclusive evidence for the existence of dark matter.