Dark matter, dark energy & gravity

In summary, the conversation discusses the topic of dark matter and dark energy in the universe and its relation to our understanding of gravity. While some argue that the existence of dark matter and dark energy is only based on belief, others argue that there is strong observational evidence for it. The conversation also touches on the idea that in science, there can be multiple explanations for the same phenomena and it ultimately comes down to the beliefs of the majority. However, the discussion also highlights the importance of distinguishing between established science and ongoing research.
  • #1
brahma
17
0
Hi Friends,

I just want to know how many of you believe that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe and how many of you believe that there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi Brahma! Welcome to PF. It's not about belief, it's about observational evidence. The conclusions are not speculative. Given what we know, gravity works just fine using Newtonian and Einstein calculations.
 
  • #3
Chronos said:
Hi Brahma! Welcome to PF. It's not about belief, it's about observational evidence. The conclusions are not speculative. Given what we know, gravity works just fine using Newtonian and Einstein calculations.

Yes, it is about belief. As I know each and every theory has its own domain of valadity and so general theory of relativity also has it domian of validity: it has not been tested at very small and very large scales. So there is actually no way to know that either GTR is ok at Planck's or Hubble's scale. This simply means that the dark matter and dark energy may be the artifacts of the breakdown of GTR since we do not have any satisfactory candidates for them.
 
  • #4
brahma said:
Yes, it is about belief. As I know each and every theory has its own domain of valadity and so general theory of relativity also has it domian of validity: it has not been tested at very small and very large scales. So there is actually no way to know that either GTR is ok at Planck's or Hubble's scale. This simply means that the dark matter and dark energy may be the artifacts of the breakdown of GTR since we do not have any satisfactory candidates for them.

The issue isn't your explanation. The issue is your liberal use of the word "belief". Such usage implies that the acceptance of GR is not based on any reliable experimental verification. This is false, because your life depends on the validity of GR every time you fly in a commercial airplane, even in the so-called limited range.

Take note also that you are using speculation to counter an established theory. The argument on "it has not been tested" or "we do not have any" are all speculation on the possiblity that it MAY not work in those range. You can't challenge an established theory using speculaton. It doesn't work that way. I could say that with just about any other physical principle that we have. Using your logic, all we have are nothing more than "beliefs". But unlike you, I have never been able to use a "belief" to make that semiconductor you are using in your modern electronics, or depend on it for my family's well-being.

Various areas of physics have different degree of certainty. To make a blanket categorization that a theory is just a "belief" just because it hasn't been tested over all the infinite range of validity is absurd.

Zz.
 
  • #5
Good point, Zz, but the question is valid and brahma is new here. While we have not explored, and tested current theory at all scales, the scales we have tested to date confirm predictions to a very high degree.
 
  • #6
Chronos said:
Good point, Zz, but the question is valid and brahma is new here. While we have not explored, and tested current theory at all scales, the scales we have tested to date confirm predictions to a very high degree.

Certainly. As you can see from my post, I didn't say that this isn't a valid question. I just wish the word "belief" doesn't get used simply because something has been tested over the whole infinite range of validity. The usage of such a word is as faulty as the usage of the word "theory" in the pedestrian manner.

There are people who "believe" in supernatural things. I want to see them use this belief to run their computer, or fly an airplane. Equating such a belief to be no different with GR is not only wrong, it is insulting.

Zz.
 
  • #7
Dear folks: Actually I am not very new here. I posted many posts here long time back from some other name but then I was lost in research.

Let me assure you that I am a faithful researcher: I must believe in homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, I must believe that the universe was originated with a "bang" and GR is "the" theory of gravity and all that...

However, sometimes I seriously feel that in science there are many occasions when we have more than one explanations for the same phenomena and finally it boils down to our "belief" and particularly on the "believe" of major section of people in the game. I think this is true in this case also.
 
  • #8
brahma said:
Dear folks: Actually I am not very new here. I posted many posts here long time back from some other name but then I was lost in research.

Let me assure you that I am a faithful researcher: I must believe in homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, I must believe that the universe was originated with a "bang" and GR is "the" theory of gravity and all that...

However, sometimes I seriously feel that in science there are many occasions when we have more than one explanations for the same phenomena and finally it boils down to our "belief" and particularly on the "believe" of major section of people in the game. I think this is true in this case also.

But you are confusing between "research front" science versus established science. Dark matter and dark energy are STILL, believe it or not, a highly active research front areas of science. This means that we continue to learn MORE and more about it as more evidence comes in, and a better refinement of our understanding of it. There are no "beliefs" here. The differeing opinions are PART of our methodology.

I can give you another example. The mechanism of high-Tc superconductors are being seriously worked on, and there are at least 2 schools of thought here. But does that mean that the WHOLE area of superconductivity is based on a "belief" without any emperical evidence? Does that mean that was we have already known so much of conventional superconductors are nothing but "opinions" or personal preferences?

I still think that it is a mistake for you to use such a word. Many quacks on the 'net would JUMP on what you have just said here and use it to justify their intrusion into such a field. If all of science is nothing more than a belief system, then what's wrong with THEIR beliefs? If you are truly a researcher, then you have done a disservice to your profession by equating such a word with what you do.

Zz.
 
  • #9
ZapperZ said:
But you are confusing between "research front" science versus established science. Dark matter and dark energy are STILL, believe it or not, a highly active research front areas of science. This means that we continue to learn MORE and more about it as more evidence comes in, and a better refinement of our understanding of it. There are no "beliefs" here. The differeing opinions are PART of our methodology.

I can give you another example. The mechanism of high-Tc superconductors are being seriously worked on, and there are at least 2 schools of thought here. But does that mean that the WHOLE area of superconductivity is based on a "belief" without any emperical evidence? Does that mean that was we have already known so much of conventional superconductors are nothing but "opinions" or personal preferences?

I still think that it is a mistake for you to use such a word. Many quacks on the 'net would JUMP on what you have just said here and use it to justify their intrusion into such a field. If all of science is nothing more than a belief system, then what's wrong with THEIR beliefs? If you are truly a researcher, then you have done a disservice to your profession by equating such a word with what you do.

Zz.
I don't see anything wrong with using the word belief. There is a difference between believing something for experimentally demonstrated reasons and believing it for arbitrary reasons, but belief is the result of either. What is important is that people have reasons their scientific claims.
Also, I do think it is somewhat speculative to say that because a theory is verified on some scale that it must be valid on all scales. Classical mechanics was an extremely successful theory for explaining a wide range of phenomenon from small objects on Earth to planets, and yet it turns out not to be true for objects at tiny scales or high speeds. I do not think it is wise to have a rigid belief one way or the other about the validity of a theory on untested scales. There is no real reason to believe a theory should continue working at a scale where there is no experimental evidence to corroborate this.
 
  • #10
LeonhardEuler said:
I don't see anything wrong with using the word belief. There is a difference between believing something for experimentally demonstrated reasons and believing it for arbitrary reasons, but belief is the result of either. What is important is that people have reasons their scientific claims.

But you are forgetting that other eyes are watching things like this. These are the SAME pair of eyes that confuses the use of the word "theory" in science. They think theory is the same as the pedestrian usage of the word in which one is making a GUESS.

If I were in a purely scientific exchange at a physics conference, I wouldn't have given this a second thought. But many prominent physicists have been quoted out of context (i.e. Einstein and his "imagination is more important than knowlege" and Feynman's "No one understands quantum mechanics). The LAST thing any responsible scientist wants to do is ADD to the pile of library of quotations that someone ignorant of its usage can use.

Also, I do think it is somewhat speculative to say that because a theory is verified on some scale that it must be valid on all scales.

I'd like you to point out to me where I actually say that.

What I did say was that it is a speculation to claim that it MAY not work. I didn't make any claim that it should work everywhere and that this is a open and shut case. That would be a silly thing to do.

To claim that the acceptance of something is a "belief" simply because it hasn't been tested over all infinite range means that you accept the fact that all of physics is a belief. Now, I challenge you to go find someone on the street and asks someone that if a physics theory is a belief, what does that mean? I will bet you that to that person, it means that is accepted based simply on a matter of FAITH without any convincing empirical evidence. Now how valid is such an impression? Did you think your semiconductor works simply because you believed in it really, really hard? What happens if you have no faith in it? Would it then not work? Really? Have people simply ignored or trivialized reproducibility in experimental physics?

Zz.
 
  • #11
brahma said:
Hi Friends,

I just want to know how many of you believe that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe and how many of you believe that there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity.
It may be that dark matter and dark energy are phenomena associated with zero point energy of the vacuum or associated with some energy of spacetime itself. We would then continue to use the GR formulas as before but correct for this phenomena with some appropriate calculation.

For example, there may be a temperature associated with being in the accelerated reference frame of a gravitational well according to the Unruh effect. This would give rise to an energy density which would add to the original field. When iterated, this might account for DM effects.

And again there might be a temperature associated with the expansion of space as distant points are seen to be accelerating away from us. This would give rise to added energy density as well. This added energy density would also give rise to even more vacuum energy, etc. And when iterated, this might account for DE effects.

The first order calculation of these effects contributes a negligible amount. But I do not know what the iterative process would converge to. Perhaps it is enough to account for DM & DE.
 
  • #12
brahma said:
I just want to know how many of you believe that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe and how many of you believe that there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

Zz makes some good points about one's interpretation of the word "belief", but given all of the evidence we've collected so far, I think I could say the following:

Dark Matter - I'm pretty convinced of its existence. We still don't know exactly what it is, but it would be pretty hard to concoct an alternate theory of gravity that so nicely explained so many different observations.

Dark Energy - I don't think we really understand what's going on here. It could be one of the more conventional explanations (like a cosmological constant and/or ZPE), but I wouldn't put money on it.


I must believe in homogeneity and isotropy of the universe

There's plenty of evidence for that, just look at the CMB.


I must believe that the universe was originated with a "bang"

Nope. The expanding universe paradigm doesn't rely on a singularity or "bang", as you put it.


and GR is "the" theory of gravity and all that...

This is, of course, an assumption we make until there is convincing evidence to the contrary. It wouldn't make sense to start by assuming a different theory of gravity.
 
  • #13
Brahma
Gravity as a force just doesn’t seem to want to fit in very well with what is observed
and with what experiments that science is capable of now.
The problem, as I see it, is that the scientific paradigm of our day (even the last 200 years) is based on the idea that gravity is a force that not only holds the universe together but determines it’s configuration (or geometry).
With this view, then, is the requirement for something unseen and so
mysterious that it cannot be detected; although we, right here, are
immersed in it.
No one wants to change a comfortable paradigm, even when it doesn’t
work anymore.
I think what is needed is a new theory of gravity where it is not a force!
What seems to be ignored is that gravity causes two or more objects to
accelerate toward each other without overcoming inertia or any
expenditure of energy.
The accelerating objects must be, technically, at rest in spacetime!
Therefore; it is distance between objects that is diminishing that results in
the effect of gravity.
But such a new concept would require an entire revamping of the
paradigm, no big bang, no gravitons and the instant propagation of the
effect of gravity. Ironically, most of Newton and Einstein’s equations would
remain.
Joel
 
Last edited:
  • #14
something new?

o:)
brahma said:
Hi Friends,

I just want to know how many of you believe that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe and how many of you believe that there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

Do you have something in mind?
I do.
Joel
 
  • #15
Dear friends: the motivation behind this post is not ask you what in textbooks, this is about what you yourself feel about the issue on the basis of your experience. I know this type of questions can be asked only in such forums.

I seriously feel that the quality of our observational data is not that good for making the statement about homogeneity and isotropy of the universe at all scales etc.

In the case of dark matter it is puzzling that why 90 % matter in the universe is unseen or dark. More puzzling is what it is: LSP, neutrinos, axions, MACHOS...

I know we need dark matter for galaxy formation, being consistent with BBN, explaining rotation curves, explaining increasing mass to light ratio when we go from galaxy to cluster scales etc. Even then, we cannot justify its existence only on the basis of the argument that we need it, without knowing what it is.

As far as dark energy is concerned everybody knows it is more problematic: fine tunning, coincidence, what it is ? Again we need it for being consistent with the age of the universe, spatial curvature and supernova observations etc.

It seems to me that people are so much confused about dark matter and dark energy that there is scope for questioning their existence. Particularly, people are coming up with all possible type scenarios some of them are really wired: dark matter and energy are the two different forms of the same thing, they are nothing but the manifestation of higher dimensions, tachyons, new theories of gravity etc.
 
  • #16
LeonhardEuler said:
I don't see anything wrong with using the word belief. There is a difference between believing something for experimentally demonstrated reasons and believing it for arbitrary reasons, but belief is the result of either. What is important is that people have reasons their scientific claims.

Absolutely right !

Also, I do think it is somewhat speculative to say that because a theory is verified on some scale that it must be valid on all scales. Classical mechanics was an extremely successful theory for explaining a wide range of phenomenon from small objects on Earth to planets, and yet it turns out not to be true for objects at tiny scales or high speeds.
These are the facts which we have to look at and learn lessons from our past and keep our eyes open for all options.

I do not think it is wise to have a rigid belief one way or the other about the validity of a theory on untested scales. There is no real reason to believe a theory should continue working at a scale where there is no experimental evidence to corroborate this.

This is what I am pointing towards.
 
  • #17
joeljen said:
Brahma
Gravity as a force just doesn?t seem to want to fit in very well with what is observed
and with what experiments that science is capable of now.
The problem, as I see it, is that the scientific paradigm of our day (even the last 200 years) is based on the idea that gravity is a force that not only holds the universe together but determines it?s configuration (or geometry).
With this view, then, is the requirement for something unseen and so
mysterious that it cannot be detected; although we, right here, are
immersed in it.
No one wants to change a comfortable paradigm, even when it doesn?t
work anymore.
I think what is needed is a new theory of gravity where it is not a force!
What seems to be ignored is that gravity causes two or more objects to
accelerate toward each other without overcoming inertia or any
expenditure of energy.
The accelerating objects must be, technically, at rest in spacetime!
Therefore; it is distance between objects that is diminishing that results in
the effect of gravity.
But such a new concept would require an entire revamping of the
paradigm, no big bang, no gravitons and the instant propagation of the
effect of gravity. Ironically, most of Newton and Einstein?s equations would
remain.
Joel

Most of it is going above my head. I do not know what type of force you are talking about.

GR which is "the" theory of gravity so far which we have and it clearly syas that "gravity is the deformation of the geometrical structure of the space time by energy".

So where is the force you are talking about


 
  • #18
Well, brahma, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, as an inquiring mind. But, apparently you already had your mind made up. It's also apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
  • #19
brahma said:
Dear friends: the motivation behind this post is not ask you what in textbooks, this is about what you yourself feel about the issue on the basis of your experience. I know this type of questions can be asked only in such forums.

I seriously feel that the quality of our observational data is not that good for making the statement about homogeneity and isotropy of the universe at all scales etc.

In the case of dark matter it is puzzling that why 90 % matter in the universe is unseen or dark. More puzzling is what it is: LSP, neutrinos, axions, MACHOS...

I know we need dark matter for galaxy formation, being consistent with BBN, explaining rotation curves, explaining increasing mass to light ratio when we go from galaxy to cluster scales etc. Even then, we cannot justify its existence only on the basis of the argument that we need it, without knowing what it is.

As far as dark energy is concerned everybody knows it is more problematic: fine tunning, coincidence, what it is ? Again we need it for being consistent with the age of the universe, spatial curvature and supernova observations etc.

It seems to me that people are so much confused about dark matter and dark energy that there is scope for questioning their existence. Particularly, people are coming up with all possible type scenarios some of them are really wired: dark matter and energy are the two different forms of the same thing, they are nothing but the manifestation of higher dimensions, tachyons, new theories of gravity etc.

Dear brahma,

In all of your replies so far, you have continued to ignore my point of the IMPLICATION of your usage of the word "belief". You still think it is OK to label ALL of physics as a belief since NO PART of physics is verified over all infinite ranges of parameters. You never once addressed the fact that using your logic, Newton's Laws that were used to construct the house you lived in is based on a "belief". You never once addressed how you would explain this to someone who is not familiar with physics. You never once address the case that using your logic, even YOUR statements on here would be considered as nothing more than a "belief". You never once address my point regarding research front science versus established science and how they evolve.

It appears that you are only interested in a one-conversation or only in someone who agrees with your view.

I believe that I have given you PLENTY of my "feelings" about such issue, and especially the irresponsibility of the usage of the word in dispute. If this whole thread is not about physics/astronomy, but rather the discussion about people's FEELINGS, then it doesn't belong in this forum but rather should be in the General Discussion forum. So far, it is severely lacking in physics/astronomy content from you.

Zz.
 
  • #20
Dear friend this is my reply:

Dear brahma,
In all of your replies so far, you have continued to ignore my point of the IMPLICATION of your usage of the word "belief".

There is no harm in using the term "belief". We have a set of "beliefs" on the basis of our expriences or prejudices. Sometime it is really difficult to find out how much of our "belief" is based on facts and how much of it is based on prejudices. For example in data analysis we have "priors" which may be considered some sort of "beliefs".

You still think it is OK to label ALL of physics as a belief since NO PART of physics is verified over all infinite ranges of parameters.

You are true. This is what I have been told also by one of our distinguished professors that "our physical theories or models are true only up to when they do not contradict with our observations or experiments. Once they do; we need to modify them. This simply means that our "physical theories are not sacred". But actually we do not need "sacred" theories or theories which work on all scales for our daily life. However, cosmology is a different subject which sometime needs some such theories.

You never once addressed the fact that using your logic, Newton's Laws that were used to construct the house you lived in is based on a "belief".

I hope my above explanation will satisfy you.

You never once addressed how you would explain this to someone who is not familiar with physics.

I think in this forum everybody is familer with physics.

You never once address the case that using your logic, even YOUR statements on here would be considered as nothing more than a "belief".

It will take too much time for me to explain you but, I assure you that everything is just a "belief" or some sort of "interpretaion" of our mind or "subjective", including science. That is why there is always scope for improvement.

You never once address my point regarding research front science versus established science and how they evolve.

I hope you got my answer.

It appears that you are only interested in a one-conversation or only in someone who agrees with your view.

Yot are attacking :uhh:

I believe that I have given you PLENTY of my "feelings" about such issue, and especially the irresponsibility of the usage of the word in dispute. If this whole thread is not about physics/astronomy, but rather the discussion about people's FEELINGS, then it doesn't belong in this forum but rather should be in the General Discussion forum. So far, it is severely lacking in physics/astronomy content from you.

Bye the way have you read about the explnations which I have given in support of dark matter and energy. I hope thay are quite informative particularly for people who are new in cosmology.

:blushing:
 
  • #21
brahma said:
There is no harm in using the term "belief". We have a set of "beliefs" on the basis of our expriences or prejudices. Sometime it is really difficult to find out how much of our "belief" is based on facts and how much of it is based on prejudices. For example in data analysis we have "priors" which may be considered some sort of "beliefs".

And this is similar to, for example, religious beliefs? Because using such a word, it is inevitable that such a connection will be made! You have zero qualms that someone would come up to you and tell you right in your face that your work is nothing better than a religious belief? Honestly?

You are true. This is what I have been told also by one of our distinguished professors that "our physical theories or models are true only up to when they do not contradict with our observations or experiments. Once they do; we need to modify them. This simply means that our "physical theories are not sacred". But actually we do not need "sacred" theories or theories which work on all scales for our daily life. However, cosmology is a different subject which sometime needs some such theories.

Then I don't see the connection to your complaint here. I have heard of NO COSMOLOGIST who are insisting that everything is "sacred" in cosmology. This is why I brought up the difference between "reserach front" work versus "established" work.

You, on the other hand, made NO DISTINCTION between the two. All you care about is that a "theory" must be tested over ALL infinite range of validity, or else, it is nothing more than a "belief". Do you still buy this? Do you consider quantum mechanics, BCS theory of superconductivity, special relativity, etc. as no different than a religious belief? And please don't confuse that question with accusing that I'm insisting that they can't "change". I made no such assertion.

I hope my above explanation will satisfy you.

Nope.

I think in this forum everybody is familer with physics.

How much would you like to bet? Did you thnk we had a questionnaire to "filter" out people who become a member here to maintain a level of physics competency? You should not make a statement like that out of ignorance.

Furthermore, if it is shown that not everybody is familiar with physics, would you then change your stance? This is a very flimsy ground to stand on.

It will take too much time for me to explain you but, I assure you that everything is just a "belief" or some sort of "interpretaion" of our mind or "subjective", including science. That is why there is always scope for improvement.

Then show me where a different set of beliefs would produce a completely different phenomena of, let's say, superconductivity in coventional superconductors. You are also confusing "improvement" with the established theory, which is why I brought up the fact that you haven't distinguised between established ideas with research front work. Yet, your criteria for calling something as a "belief" covers EVERYTHING.

I still would like you to show me how you used a "belief" to make your computers work using all those semiconductors in your processors.

I hope you got my answer.

I did, and it still didn't make any sense because you continue to skirt the issue.

Bye the way have you read about the explnations which I have given in support of dark matter and energy. I hope thay are quite informative particularly for people who are new in cosmology.

:blushing:

Sorry, but that's your "belief". You'll understand if I do not trust your judgement.

Zz.
 
  • #22
Dear Zz,

Thank you very much for making the debate hot :mad:

I will be back, but you can keep posting. I will try to reply.


bye
 
  • #23
brahma said:
Dear Zz,

Thank you very much for making the debate hot :mad

Sorry, but YOU did. I would be VERY surprise if you are naive enough to think that by making your categorization that all of science is nothing more than a "belief", that no one would challenge you on this.

But then again, you never did think of the consequences of making such a statement, did you?

Zz.
 
  • #24
ZapperZ said:
Sorry, but YOU did. I would be VERY surprise if you are naive enough to think that by making your categorization that all of science is nothing more than a "belief", that no one would challenge you on this.

Science is a type of "belief" but it is not like relegious beliefs which cannot be challanged.

Most of the scentific beliefs are based on some reasons.

If you go through some scientific papers you can find the term "belief" there. For example one one may be saying: We believe that galaxies and all other large scale structures in the universe were formed by gravitational instability ...
 
  • #25
brahma said:
Science is a type of "belief" but it is not like relegious beliefs which cannot be challanged.

Most of the scentific beliefs are based on some reasons.

If you go through some scientific papers you can find the term "belief" there. For example one one may be saying: We believe that galaxies and all other large scale structures in the universe were formed by gravitational instability ...

However, you seem to keep missing the POINT, and something I have brought up way in the beginning of this mess.

I have clearly mentioned that if this were a discussion at a physics conference, amoung physicists, I wouldn't have given it a second look. We ALL know where we stand, and there are many things and words and phrases that we use that we clearly understand the CONTEXT.

However, look at how often things like this are bastardized among the general public. The usage of the word "theory" is one very clear and non-trivial example. And I put it to you that your use of the word "belief" can easily be miscontrued to mean an acceptance of something without any valid empirical evidence, similar to a religious belief. Again, I challenge you to try it out to people on the street and come back here and tell me I'm wrong. It is why I said the use of such a word is irresponsible. If you wish to argue that Dark Matter and Dark Energy have insufficient evidence and with a low degree of certainty, then SAY SO! But don't add another level of misinterpretation that can be used by others to continue to attack science - unless this is your intention in the first place.

Secondly, by saying "we believe...", this is NOT the same as saying that such a thing is a "belief". I will put it to you that it is merely a statement that the authors has a preference for a particular point of view of something that is STILL a research front area without having a slam-dunk evidence. I have used that phrase in my paper. Yet, this is FAR from claiming that it is a belief, especially when I am basing what I claim on experimental observations (I am an experimentalist). It could easily mean that there are other possible interpretation, but the degree of certainty is shifting towards one interpretation versus another (example: spin fluctuation versus phonon modes for high Tc superconductors). No one in their right mind would say "we believe that Newton's laws is correct and can be used to construct a bridge". Why? This is because the use of such laws for such purpose is no longer research front physics. Yet, by your logic, since it has limited applicability, it is a "belief"!

This is what I objected to.

Zz.
 
  • #26
Dear Zz,

let me make clear that here my intention is not to attack any "well established theory".

If there are any non physicists in this forum then I just want to say them that with time our scientific theories are becoming more and more stronger and physics and for that matter any other science is much more close to truth than any relegious belief.

I would like to withdraw my arguments if anybody is feeling offended.


dear Zz again thanks for the discussion.
 
  • #27
brahma said:
I seriously feel that the quality of our observational data is not that good for making the statement about homogeneity and isotropy of the universe at all scales etc.

I'm not convinced you're familiar enough with the observational data to make that statement. Could you elaborate, please?


In the case of dark matter it is puzzling that why 90 % matter in the universe is unseen or dark.

Why? Is it not a philosophical prejudice that we should be able to see that which constitutes the majority of matter in the universe?


More puzzling is what it is: LSP, neutrinos, axions, MACHOS...

The fact that we can't see it means that it interacts weakly with ordinary matter, which means that it should be no surprise that we haven't identified it in the laboratory.


Even then, we cannot justify its existence only on the basis of the argument that we need it, without knowing what it is.

What do you mean, "can't justify its existence"? Nature need not justify herself to us.


It seems to me that people are so much confused about dark matter and dark energy that there is scope for questioning their existence.

There is always room for questioning in science, but as I said, you would have a very difficult time constructing a theory of gravity that explained all of the problems solved by dark matter. There are plenty of people trying to do it, but none have come up with anything particularly convincing.
 
  • #28
Gravity, the force

brahma said:
Most of it is going above my head. I do not know what type of force you are talking about.

GR which is "the" theory of gravity so far which we have and it clearly syas that "gravity is the deformation of the geometrical structure of the space time by energy".

So where is the force you are talking about

Gravity, the force.
There is no problem with your statement. But, as I see it; your statement
refers to the “effect” of gravity.
Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking and Edward Witten all report that gravity
is one of the four fundamental forces in nature.
They are named as the “Strong” force (particle is the “Gluon”),
Electromagnetic force (particle is the “Photon”), the Weak force (particle is “weak gauge bosons”) and the force of gravity (particle is the “graviton”).
The way I see it, if gravity depends on the messenger particle “graviton”,
then every atom in the universe would have to be surrounded by or
immersed in a cloud of gravitons from every other atom in the universe.:cry:
Brian Greene is currently working on a new “quantum” theory of gravity.
Joel
 
  • #29
Dark matter gravity

brahma said:
Hi Friends,

I just want to know how many of you believe that there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe and how many of you believe that there is something wrong with our understanding of gravity.

Dark matter gravity:shy:
One of the reasons for the requirement of dark matter gravity is that the
gravity of what's visible is insufficient to hold galactic clusters together.
Vera Rubin and Kent Ford noted that a spinning galaxy lacked sufficient
gravity to hold the faster stars and they should be flung away.
Their analysis required that the galaxy be immersed at the center a giant
ball of dark matter.
Assuming the dark balls spin is consistent with the imbedded galaxy, what
keeps the dark ball itself together without crushing the galaxy?
Joel
 
  • #30
joeljen said:
Gravity, the force.
There is no problem with your statement. But, as I see it; your statement
refers to the “effect” of gravity.
Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking and Edward Witten all report that gravity
is one of the four fundamental forces in nature.
They are named as the “Strong” force (particle is the “Gluon”),
Electromagnetic force (particle is the “Photon”), the Weak force (particle is “weak gauge bosons”) and the force of gravity (particle is the “graviton”).
The way I see it, if gravity depends on the messenger particle “graviton”,
then every atom in the universe would have to be surrounded by or
immersed in a cloud of gravitons from every other atom in the universe.:cry:
Brian Greene is currently working on a new “quantum” theory of gravity.
Joel

Hi,

Forget about the force. Ask Frank Wilczek (I have forgotten the reference but there is a good article written by him for physics today; check his webpage). He will say there is nothing called force. All four are interactions. Can you write an expression for force on the basis of the standard model of particle physics for strong or for that matter for weak interaction. I hope you cannot. This is due to the excessive use of Newtonian mechanics in our life that we always look for the force. I hope next time you will use the term "fundamental interactions" in place of "fundamental forces".

:uhh:
 
  • #32
check it out!

brahma said:
Hi,

Forget about the force. Ask Frank Wilczek (I have forgotten the reference but there is a good article written by him for physics today; check his webpage). He will say there is nothing called force. All four are interactions. Can you write an expression for force on the basis of the standard model of particle physics for strong or for that matter for weak interaction. I hope you cannot. This is due to the excessive use of Newtonian mechanics in our life that we always look for the force. I hope next time you will use the term "fundamental interactions" in place of "fundamental forces".

:uhh:

Hi
OK
I'll check it out. Something new!
And try to keep an open mind, in spite of all those equations with the symbol "F".
more later
joel
 
  • #33
joeljen said:
Hi
OK
I'll check it out. Something new!
And try to keep an open mind, in spite of all those equations with the symbol "F".
more later
joel

Those "F" are for school kids !
 
  • #34
F better than 0

brahma said:
Those "F" are for school kids !

I’ll quit being a school kid when I know all about it.
Frank Wilczek is a hard read; but I’m OK with a mathematician calling a force an interaction and a physicist calling an interaction a force. Just so the bridge don’t fall and somebody can play golf on the moon.
But back to your original question, I don’t believe in dark matter and I do believe there’s a need for a new idea about gravity.
joel
 
  • #35
joeljen said:
But back to your original question, I don’t believe in dark matter and I do believe there’s a need for a new idea about gravity.
joel

You can "believe" anything you want, but since this is physics/astronomy, such a statement is worthless unless one can back it up with sound theoretical formulation and/or valid experimental observation. You might as well say you believe in the tooth fairy.

PF Guidelines against over speculative posting can be found here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374

Zz.
 
<h2>1. What is dark matter and how is it different from regular matter?</h2><p>Dark matter is a type of matter that makes up about 27% of the universe, while regular matter (the kind we can see and interact with) makes up only about 5%. The main difference between dark matter and regular matter is that dark matter does not interact with light, which is why we cannot see it. It also does not emit or absorb any electromagnetic radiation, making it difficult to detect.</p><h2>2. How was dark matter first discovered?</h2><p>The existence of dark matter was first proposed in the 1930s by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky. He observed that the rotational speeds of galaxies were much higher than expected based on the amount of visible matter in them. This led him to theorize that there must be some invisible matter providing the extra gravitational force.</p><h2>3. What is dark energy and how does it affect the expansion of the universe?</h2><p>Dark energy is a mysterious force that is thought to make up about 68% of the universe. It is believed to be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, meaning that the space between galaxies is expanding at an increasing rate. This is contrary to what was previously believed, as scientists thought that the expansion of the universe was slowing down due to the force of gravity.</p><h2>4. How does gravity play a role in the formation of galaxies and the universe?</h2><p>Gravity is a fundamental force that plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution of galaxies and the universe. It is responsible for pulling matter together, allowing for the formation of structures like galaxies, stars, and planets. Without gravity, the universe would not have formed in the way that it has, and galaxies would not have been able to hold themselves together.</p><h2>5. Can we directly observe or measure dark matter and dark energy?</h2><p>While we cannot directly observe or measure dark matter and dark energy, scientists have been able to indirectly detect their presence through various methods such as gravitational lensing and studying the cosmic microwave background radiation. However, there is still much we do not know about these mysterious substances, and ongoing research and experiments are being conducted to better understand their nature and properties.</p>

1. What is dark matter and how is it different from regular matter?

Dark matter is a type of matter that makes up about 27% of the universe, while regular matter (the kind we can see and interact with) makes up only about 5%. The main difference between dark matter and regular matter is that dark matter does not interact with light, which is why we cannot see it. It also does not emit or absorb any electromagnetic radiation, making it difficult to detect.

2. How was dark matter first discovered?

The existence of dark matter was first proposed in the 1930s by Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky. He observed that the rotational speeds of galaxies were much higher than expected based on the amount of visible matter in them. This led him to theorize that there must be some invisible matter providing the extra gravitational force.

3. What is dark energy and how does it affect the expansion of the universe?

Dark energy is a mysterious force that is thought to make up about 68% of the universe. It is believed to be responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, meaning that the space between galaxies is expanding at an increasing rate. This is contrary to what was previously believed, as scientists thought that the expansion of the universe was slowing down due to the force of gravity.

4. How does gravity play a role in the formation of galaxies and the universe?

Gravity is a fundamental force that plays a crucial role in the formation and evolution of galaxies and the universe. It is responsible for pulling matter together, allowing for the formation of structures like galaxies, stars, and planets. Without gravity, the universe would not have formed in the way that it has, and galaxies would not have been able to hold themselves together.

5. Can we directly observe or measure dark matter and dark energy?

While we cannot directly observe or measure dark matter and dark energy, scientists have been able to indirectly detect their presence through various methods such as gravitational lensing and studying the cosmic microwave background radiation. However, there is still much we do not know about these mysterious substances, and ongoing research and experiments are being conducted to better understand their nature and properties.

Similar threads

Replies
23
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
668
  • Cosmology
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
444
  • Cosmology
Replies
0
Views
257
Replies
1
Views
818
  • Cosmology
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
538
Back
Top