Slashdot Mirror
CERN Physicist Says Dark Matter May Be an Illusion
anonymousNR writes "A CERN physicist has a new theory explaining the rotational curves of galaxies. 'The key message of my paper is that dark matter may not exist and that phenomena attributed to dark matter may be explained by the gravitational polarization of the quantum vacuum,' Hajdukovic told PhysOrg.com. 'The future experiments and observations will reveal if my results are only (surprising) numerical coincidences or an embryo of a new scientific revolution.' Given the many theories around explaining various observations in recent times, there seems to be a breakthrough on its way in our understanding of the cosmos."
I hope so. Dark matter is the ugliest kludge to the standard model ever.
It's worse than the Plus upgrade for Windows 98.
Support FSF: Stop thinking with your wallet, and think with your imagination. (cc/non-commercial)
Yay for phlogiston and aether. Dark matter might end up on the list of ideas that physcists turned to in order to explain things that had other explanations. La plus ca change...
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
What really surprises me is, despite this, so many physicists have jumped on the bandwagon.
This is because it is the simplest theory which fits available data. There are simpler theories, but they do not fit available data, and thus are of little value.
Average Slashdotters have been more skeptical of they dark matter theory than physicists, from what I've seen.
This is because average Slashdotters do not have even the beginnings of a clue about astrophysics, but think they are expert at every subject they ever heard mentioned on the internet.
From TFP: "Let us end by pointing that the rotational curves of galaxies are not the only phenomenon
which is currently explained by Dark Matter. For instance, CMB data are apparently in favor of
the presence of dark matter as a key for understanding of density fluctuations and the structure
formation in the Universe (see review of Einasto, 2010). While our Letter gives indices that the
gravitational vacuum polarization could be an alternative to dark matter in the explanation of the
galactic rotational curves, a tremendous work would be needed, to reveal if the other phenomena
could be alternatively explained by the vacuum polarization."
In other words, it's just another MOND theory, of which there have been many over the years. Wake me when MOND proponents write a theory that explains *all* the evidence for dark matter, CMB, nucleosynthesis, rotation curves, etc., not the particular phenomena they've cherry-picked. Until then, dark matter, whether that's WIMPs, MACHOs or axions, is the only explanation that fits all the evidence thusfar.
You can detect dark matter. If it exists, we have already indirectly detected it. We have not yet directly detected it, but that is not because it not possible to do so, just that we have not succeeded yet. We are currently trying to do so.
Using similar methods, there was a time when you could "detect" epicycles, too. Like dark matter they were a theoretical fudge factor designed to prevent a cherished theory from falling apart due to its lack of successful predictions and explanatory power. In the case of epicycles, the cherished theory was geocentrism. You would have been ridiculed extensively (and quite possibly be in danger of the Inquisition) for questioning it, not because your own theory wasn't viable or couldn't also explain the observed results but because "everybody knew" how "well-established it is" that the earth is the center of the solar system...
If they teach scientists about the history of these things as part of their normal training, they don't do a very good job. At all.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Well, there's also a lot of:
You're assuming that 90% of the universe is invisible on the basis of *what* evidence? I'd like a bit of better evidence, please, before I swallow something like that.
It's something that *could* be true, but the evidence is pretty thin for the size of the hypothesis. Maybe it's the best we can do, and maybe it isn't. For a while longer I'm going to presume that eventually we'll come up with either a better answer, or more convincing evidence. The current evidence is proof of something, but it's not clear that what it's a proof of is the current best theory. Maybe it would be better to suspend premature certainty.
N.B.: I, and many others, aren't active physicists, so we don't NEED to decide what things mean right now. It's ok for us to suspend belief, and not be certain which theory is correct. Start making predictions that directly affect us, and this will change. I believe that the previous sentence also applies to most active physicists. And even to many cosmologists.
But I admit to being skeptical about dark matter and dark energy. They're explaining something, but I doubt that they are the correct explanation. What I see them as being is something that's good enough to allow the equations to balance right now. But given the paucity of evidence, I'm not convinced that they're the right shape for an explanation.
It's sort of strange. I'm rather attached to the multi-world interpretation of quantum theory, and that also has no effect on what I see or do. It could be Copenhagen and it wouldn't make any practical difference to me. But I dislike the Copenhagen interpretation. And there is *NO* evidence to allow one to choose between them.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Go to a fundamentalist church group some time and tell me you really think they are more capable of understanding when they are wrong.
Would you want someone to base their opinion of Americans based on trip to a US insane asylum? If not then why would you think a visit to a fundamentalist church would be a good way to judge a religion as a whole? Both are only fractions of their respective societies and both are filled with people who have a tenuous grasp on reality. It is bad science to use a biased sample like that on which to base your judgements.