Slashdot Mirror
Examining the Expected Effects of Dark Matter On the Solar System
First time accepted submitter LiavK writes "Ethan Siegel recently wrote a great post for ScienceBlogs discussing the expected total mass of dark matter in the solar system. As far as we can tell, dark matter only interacts weakly, via gravity, both with itself and normal matter. So, it can't collide with itself, meaning that it has no way of getting hotter and radiating away energy and momentum. This means that it remains a diffuse mess, with a density that is ridiculously low, to the point where detecting its local effects is likely to remain... challenging for the foreseeable future."
As opposed to the ether of the 19th century, quantum fields, which are what we currently use to explain everything?
Michelson and Morley found that the hypothetical ether had no detectable effects.
In contrast, scientists started by measuring orbital velocities and could only explain them with dark matter.
The problem with dark matter observation in this case is that science is based on empirical observation. If you can't see it, can't measure it, and can't even draw inferences from what you can see and measure to detect something indirectly... it's not science. What this is saying is that the effects are so miniscule that there is no equipment presently capable of separating an actual effect or observation from systemic inaccuracy in the equipment itself. That is, you can't tell whether it's just random 'noise' or an actual signal.
As I understand it, there's a big empty space in most of our theories and observations that says something should be filling it up, but we have very little in the way of actual data of what exists within this hole. We can infer something is needed to balance out our observations, but we haven't actually seen the 'something'. It's like a shy cat in an apartment. You won't see that cat again, and an exhaustive search of most of the rooms in the apartment comes up empty, but something keeps eating the cat food. Thus, we have concluded there's a cat in the apartment... but nobody has actually ever seen the cat.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
My bet is that the need for dark matter will disappear when relativistic effects are properly taken into account.
And I bet that at some point during the last few decades of thousands of observations, theories, and calculations by thousands of astronomers, physicists, and mathematicians (some with Nobel prizes, no less), someone would have already thought of this if it was an issue.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Actually, it doesn't really in any way. Unless you think the only relevant property of the ether was that it permeated all space, in which case there is a bunch of stuff in science, past and present, that fits that description, anywhere from various potentials to other various fields. Might as well complain heliocentricism sounds just like geocentricism because they both involved spinning things.
The Higgs field is just the latest one. Quantum field theory (what people mean today when they say "quantum mechanics") includes a field for every fundamental particle. Yes, the ether won.
That's because when you say things like that you check off quite a few boxes on the crackpot criteria.
It's not a religion. Lots of different dark matter theories and alternatives have been proposed and tested. The problem is that when some random Slashdotter comes along and says "dude, it must be something else!" the actual astronomers, and the amateurs who can read, roll their eyes. When the same Slashdotter then says "dude, you're not taking me seriously because you can't get past your religious dogma!" said astronomers and literate amateurs roll their eyes harder.
You've got a bit mixed up here. The entire idea of dark matter is because we can measure something we can't see - there are gravitational effects but not electromagnetic ones that have been seen yet.
It's more like stepping on a black cat in the dark. You've felt it underfoot for an instant and it's run off somewhere, so while you don't know what it is or where it is you do have empirical evidence that you've stood on something.
Ah, I understand. You're talking about people who are skeptical of your favourite off the wall theory. That's not religion. As the thread before your post said, when Slashdotter 214243 comes along with some theory from left field, along with an assertion that the experts (some of whom have Nobel prizes), who have put careers into looking into this question, are wrong (or religious), he better have some good evidence to support it. Every time I've seen it that "evidence" boiled down to a vague, usually incorrect understanding, usually with a healthy dose of conspiracy theory.
Maybe you've seen something a little more solid? Care to share?