Slashdot Mirror


Vera Rubin, Pioneering Astronomer Who Confirmed Existence of Dark Matter, Dies At 88 (www.cbc.ca)

Mikkeles quotes a report from CBC.ca: Vera Rubin, a pioneering astronomer who helped find powerful evidence of dark matter, has died, her son said Monday. She was 88. Vera Rubin found that galaxies don't quite rotate the way they were predicted, and that lent support to the theory that some other force was at work, namely dark matter. Rubin's scientific achievements earned her numerous awards and honors, including a National Medal of Science presented by then-president Bill Clinton in 1993 "for her pioneering research programs in observational cosmology." She also became the second female astronomer to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences.

23 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Dark Matter is a horrible kludge by digitalride · · Score: 4, Informative

    and Rubin wasn't a huge fan of it either:
    "If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances. That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle."

    I have high hopes for this new theory that can account for the galaxy rotation problem ( and the emDrive ): http://physicsfromtheedge.blog...

    --
    Open Source is Common Sense: http://groovix.com/
    1. Re: Dark Matter is a horrible kludge by xtal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Science disproves through experiment and fact. Those theories are being experimentally tested, data is being collected, and they are falsifiable. Both are well past the bar for requiring further investigation.

      Shame on YOU.

      --
      ..don't panic
    2. Re:Dark Matter is a horrible kludge by Goaway · · Score: 2

      MOND has long since been proven to be nonsense. It's an eve worse kludge, that explains only a few of the many distinct problems that are all solved by dark matter.

      MOND is by far the less elegant solution than dark matter.

    3. Re:Dark Matter is a horrible kludge by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 3, Funny

      When a scientist trusts a theory so much that he stops considering any desagreing theory, he stops being a scientist and becomes a believer.
      . When the above happens to a large group of scientists, they become a religion.
      When that large group of scientists start perusing other scientists for having diverging theories, ideas, opinions, It becomes an inquisition.

      It is ok for you to explain why EmDrive should not work or the mistakes made in EmDrive experiments that would compromise the results.
      It is NOT OK fo you to call them "not real scientists".
      Doing it the true disgrace here.

  2. Confirmed Existence? by sexconker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When exactly did we confirm the existence of dark matter?

    1. Re:Confirmed Existence? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Informative

      What are you, a dark matter denier? The science is settled - there's consensus! We should now be turning our attention to finding that dark matter.

      Joking aside, Vera Rubin obviously did not confirm the existence of dark matter. That's a terrible headline. She discovered that current mass estimates of the universe could not account for the rotations of galaxies using current models.

      Everything beyond that is just a hypotheses, as no hint of "dark matter" has been found. I have a hunch that nothing will continue to be found until scientists figure out that their mass estimates were way off, or that the models were horribly wrong. Scientific "truths" are always getting clobbered by "ridiculous" new ideas, so it could go either way on this, but I'm betting on our lack of understanding rather than an invisible particle making up most of the mass of the universe.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    2. Re:Confirmed Existence? by burtosis · · Score: 2, Informative

      Since the Bullet Cluster. Not not that but there are many other sources of gravitational lensing that dark matter describes well.

    3. Re:Confirmed Existence? by lucm · · Score: 2

      When exactly did we confirm the existence of dark matter?

      Duh, look it up, season 1 is on Netflix.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    4. Re:Confirmed Existence? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      What's with the hysteria and the "joke"? All dark matter signifies is that there is a lot of stuff that we cannot currently see electromagnetically.
      Space is big. Space is dark. Why the hubris that we can see everything with our current technology?

    5. Re:Confirmed Existence? by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Informative

      You and I must have very different definitions of "hysteria". I was simply trying to clarify the current status of dark matter, so far as a layperson can understand it, as the headline seemed rather misleading. This is still "news for nerds", right? I'd hope we still value scientific accuracy in our science-based articles.

      I certainly wasn't trying to denigrate Vera Rubin's contribution to science, the most notable of which was a pretty amazing discovery. Nor will her contribution to science be lessened if the dark matter theory ends up wrong. It was a brilliant observation that no one else made, and it sparked a fascinating line of investigation, to which no one can really will predict exactly what the results will be. In any case, its bound to turn some previously held theories on their heads.

      And since you put "joke" in quotes, I'm sorry you didn't find it humorous. You can't please everyone, I guess.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    6. Re:Confirmed Existence? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2

      Everything beyond that is just a hypotheses, as no hint of "dark matter" has been found.

      I agree that "matter" is just a hypothesis, but you can't say no hint has been found. The observed gravitational effect is a huge hint.

      The hypothesis may be wrong, but it's the best hypothesis going. And there is plenty of evidence that the phenomenon is real, whether the matter hypothesis is correct or not.

      The Wikipedia article is worth a read.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    7. Re:Confirmed Existence? by Goaway · · Score: 3, Informative

      MOND is one of the many theories that have tried and failed to explain all the anomalous results we have collected over the years. MOND is basically completely discredited at this point, and dark matter is the most simple and elegant theory we have to explain all the results we have.

    8. Re:Confirmed Existence? by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      Someone recently did revise estimates of the number of galaxies by an order of magnitude.

      http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-ten-galaxies-previously-thought.html

      No, they didn't. You cannot read the popular summary written by someone who did not read the actual paper to understand what the finding was. What they found was ten times more galaxies that had been seen to date in the early Universe, due to the limitations of the data collection methods used thus far, but this matches the expected value that is predicted by current theoretical models!

      The number of galaxies in the Universe declines with time, as their average mass increases due to processes of galactic coalescence. This paper detected the galaxy density at an earlier time than hitherto been observed, but this closely matches the expected value predicted for example by the theoretical model cited in the paper (Torrey, P., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2770).

      So instead of "revising estimates" it instead confirmed predictions an almost diametrically opposite result.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  3. Re: An Amazing Human by burtosis · · Score: 2

    Reminds me of the time Sinfeld visited the campus I was on, the entire surrounding campus was teeming with people and it packed the auditorium. Roger Penrose came the next week and it was a ghost town, barely filling a small lecture hall. Guess people have their priorities.

  4. Re: An Amazing Human by lucm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's kinda sad, especially since Seinfeld is not even funny. Even in the show named after him he was the least funny character.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  5. Galaxy spin by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 2

    There is no experimental evidence for either dark matter or dark energy.

    Someday, maybe. But not today.

    We can measure the rotational velocity of galaxies by noting the red/blue shift of light from the opposite arms.

    We can estimate the normal matter by looking at the brightness and estimating the number of stars.

    When we do that, we find that galaxies rotate much faster than even the most optimistic estimates of their normal matter. They rotate so fast that they would literally fly apart if they only had mass from visible matter.

    One hypothesis is that the extra mass comes from matter that we can't see. There's so much of it needed that it can't interact with EM radiation in any way, otherwise we'd be able to see it directly.

    All other hypotheses to date have been disproved in one way or another. In particular, modifications to the law of gravity cannot account for the discrepancy.

    Dark matter is the most likely explanation.

    1. Re:Galaxy spin by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      I find the gravitational lensing that comes without detectable mass to be more convincing evidence, myself. Other theories of gravitational rotation can't explain the lensing. There's other evidence also.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Galaxy spin by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      This is not as cut and dried as you might think. The link below describes how there is a 1 to 1 relationship between observed matter in a galaxy and rotation speed. No mystical and mysterious dark matter is needed to determine the rotation speed.

      Check out the link below:

      Case Western Reserve University

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    3. Re: Galaxy spin by Demena · · Score: 2

      I do not think that MiHsC has been disproven. More and more of is predictions are being shown to be observationally correct. I think you might find it interesting to read Mike McCulloch's blog "Physics from the Edge". It is worth reading in its entirety in my not-so-humble opinion.

  6. New theory of gravity by chefren · · Score: 2

    There is a recently published new theory of gravity that doesn't need dark matter to explain the movement of stars. It does on the other hand need Einstein to be wrong: http://earthsky.org/space/erik... The article has a link to the actual paper.

    1. Re:New theory of gravity by lkroll4565 · · Score: 2

      I've watched several videos about the Electric Universe theory, it does appear to explain a lot of Cosmological phenomena that Relativity does not and the additional handwaving (dark matter and dark energy) added, still doesn't quite do so either. It too requires Einstein to be wrong. :)

  7. Re: An Amazing Human by haruchai · · Score: 4, Informative

    And yet there will be fewer posts on here than on the one about the do-nothing space princess.

    Carrie Fisher was an author, playwright and script and public speaker on bipolar disorder and substance abuse.
    I love that cosmological stuff something fierce but none of it has an immediate impact on my daily life whereas I personally know about a dozen with bipolar & dozens more through them

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  8. Re: An Amazing Human by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a rule people who see others responding to X and say, "Well what about Y?" don't give a shit about X or Y.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.