Is Dark Matter Just a Reflection of Our Flawed Theories?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DecayProduct
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of dark matter and its implications for our understanding of the universe. Participants explore whether dark matter is a necessary component of current cosmological models or if it reflects flaws in existing theories of gravity and mass. The conversation touches on theoretical, observational, and speculative aspects of dark matter and dark energy.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the necessity of dark matter, suggesting that it may be an abstract concept created to reconcile observations with established theories of gravity.
  • Others argue that there is substantial evidence supporting dark matter, citing specific observations such as the dynamics of the Bullet Cluster and the WMAP data.
  • A participant proposes that dark matter may be more of a placeholder for unknown phenomena rather than a well-defined theory.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions underlying current models, including the possibility that our observational perspective may be flawed, leading to misinterpretations of galactic dynamics.
  • Some participants suggest that the observed rotation speeds of galaxies could be explained by alternative theories, such as the influence of supermassive black holes or other undiscovered factors affecting gravitational interactions.
  • There is a discussion about dark energy, particularly its role in the accelerating expansion of the universe, with some participants questioning whether it is necessary to explain observed phenomena.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the existence and necessity of dark matter and dark energy, as well as the implications of current observations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding dark matter and dark energy, including unresolved assumptions about gravitational effects and observational interpretations. The complexity of galactic dynamics and the nature of cosmic expansion are also acknowledged as areas requiring further exploration.

  • #31
Jules18 said:
But for lack of a better way of saying it in my limited vocabulary - Seriously? Dark matter? Come on.
Please come up with something better. I assure you, everybody tries, but it's not like dark matter has been an easy guess.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #32
Dark matter is a drop dead easy answer. It's the only solution that makes sense without throwing theoretical physics, as we know it, out on its head. It's possible all our theories of physics are fundamentally flawed, but, unlikely.
 
  • #33
Chronos said:
Dark matter is a drop dead easy answer.
Technically maybe. But I meant it was not easily accepted historically.
 
  • #34
There was a time where these additions to gravity were attributed to the local nature of space. Recall \Lambda, Einstein's cosomological constant. Then it became thought ambiguous. Now it seems wholly attributed to something of particle nature. Is this correct, or is

R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2}Rg_{\mu \nu} + D_{\mu \nu} = 8 \pi G T_{\mu \nu}

still an option, where D is a attribute of the vacuum?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
8K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
919
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 82 ·
3
Replies
82
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K