What Really Grinds my Gear about the Dark Phenomena.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Nano-Passion
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gear Phenomena
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of dark energy and dark matter, questioning their necessity and the implications of their nomenclature in physics. Participants explore the validity of these concepts in explaining cosmic phenomena, particularly the acceleration of the universe and galaxy rotation, while expressing skepticism about their definitions and the potential for misunderstanding in the scientific community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that dark energy and dark matter are merely labels for phenomena that are not fully understood, suggesting that their introduction may serve as a scapegoat for gaps in current knowledge.
  • Others contend that naming these phenomena does not equate to providing a full explanation, emphasizing that the terms are placeholders for ongoing research.
  • A participant suggests that dark energy could be viewed as a property of empty space, while another challenges this by stating that it does not accurately describe dark energy or dark matter.
  • There is a viewpoint that general relativity could potentially explain galaxy rotation without invoking dark matter or dark energy, although this remains unproven.
  • Concerns are raised about the conflation of dark energy, dark matter, and other terms like 'dark flow', which some believe leads to confusion in public understanding and scientific discourse.
  • Some participants express frustration with the use of the term "dark" in scientific nomenclature, arguing it may create unrealistic expectations about what these concepts represent.
  • One participant notes that the mass of dark matter is believed to exceed that of visible matter, while dark energy is posited to constitute a significant portion of the universe, highlighting the complexity of these concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the necessity or validity of dark energy and dark matter. Disagreements persist regarding the implications of their nomenclature and the adequacy of current explanations in cosmology.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the historical context of scientific nomenclature and the evolution of terms as knowledge progresses, suggesting that current labels may not adequately reflect the phenomena they describe. There are also mentions of specific studies and claims that have been contested, indicating ongoing debates in the field.

Nano-Passion
Messages
1,291
Reaction score
0
Physics is unable to explain the acceleration of the universe and the law of gravity isn't as accurate and obsolete as they thought it was.. How do we react?

Invent dark energy and dark matter to take care of the non-accurateness of our knowledge. It is very easy to adjust a formula by adding external forces to explain it (such as dark energy and dark matter).

We glorify our gravity formula and look for a scape-goat.

This is what grinds my gear.

Discuss.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That's not a scapegoat. We just gave the phenomena names. Calling them dark this or dark that doesn't mean we're giving a definition or explanation to what they are.
 
Pengwuino said:
That's not a scapegoat. We just gave the phenomena names. Calling them dark this or dark that doesn't mean we're giving a definition or explanation to what they are.

Correct me if I'm wrong. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is that of virtual particles that affect space and gravity.
 
Nano-Passion said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is that of virtual particles that affect space and gravity.

No, where did you get that?
 
Pengwuino said:
No, where did you get that?

Let me rephrase, it is a property of empty space. (very off description)

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

Dark energy is a property of space; one speculation is due to ""empty space" is actually full of temporary ("virtual") particles that continually form and then disappear."
 
While that may happen, it's not dark energy or dark matter.

My gears are ground too. I can't prove it but my gut tells me there is no dark energy or dark matter needed to explain the rotation of galaxies. GR probably gets the right answer if the problem is properly formulated.
 
Nano-Passion said:
Physics is unable to explain the acceleration of the universe and the law of gravity isn't as accurate and obsolete as they thought it was.. How do we react?

Invent dark energy and dark matter to take care of the non-accurateness of our knowledge. It is very easy to adjust a formula by adding external forces to explain it (such as dark energy and dark matter).

We glorify our gravity formula and look for a scape-goat.

This is what grinds my gear.

Discuss.

This idea is utterly silly. You expect knowledge of a phenomenon to be known completely in a short period of time? What universe do you live in?

Why do you think "x-ray" was called that? It was because when it was first detected, no one knew what it was, so they just labeled it with the letter "X". Now, according to you, if you've lived around that time, that's the end of that!

If we had called it with some exotic name (such as tachyon), just think that you wouldn't have been any wiser about the fact that we are still trying to figure out what it is.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
This idea is utterly silly. You expect knowledge of a phenomenon to be known completely in a short period of time? What universe do you live in?

Why do you think "x-ray" was called that? It was because when it was first detected, no one knew what it was, so they just labeled it with the letter "X". Now, according to you, if you've lived around that time, that's the end of that!

If we had called it with some exotic name (such as tachyon), just think that you wouldn't have been any wiser about the fact that we are still trying to figure out what it is.

Zz.

With relation to dark matter, I agree completely. The expansion of the universe however being explained by dark energy is unfortunate and it doesn't take more than one googling to see how people conflate Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and now, 'Dark Flow'. Calling Dark Matter by that name is fine, but then going ahead with "Dark Energy" is really unfortunate, and leads to warped expectations of what is being demonstrated, or not.
 
nismaratwork said:
The expansion of the universe however being explained by dark energy is unfortunate and it doesn't take more than one googling to see how people conflate Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and now, 'Dark Flow'. Calling Dark Matter by that name is fine, but then going ahead with "Dark Energy" is really unfortunate, and leads to warped expectations of what is being demonstrated, or not.

.. and you are able to judge this because... ?

Zz.
 
  • #10
ZapperZ said:
.. and you are able to judge this because... ?

Zz.

It's just my opinion, in GD. From what I've read on this site, Dark Matter is a well accepted explanation, although lacking in details. Dark Energy is a name for a variable in the question of what is driving accelerating expansion. Dark Flow seems very far-fetched to me, but tries to gain credibility or at least attention by jumping on the "Dark" train.

I think a quick perusal of physorg and less controlled environments shows that conflation occurs all too often; this use of "Dark" in a modern context is unfortunate. Note that all unnamed elements are standardized, BUT UNIQUE. Physics, especially popular cosmology seems to be peppered with neologisms that do more to confuse the issues than clarify them.

May I ask, is there a reason NOT to assign phenomenon unique "slang" names if that's what must be done?
 
  • #11
Just because it is in GD doesn't mean that one can make unjustified claims either. The PF Rules applies globally.

It appears that your disagreement about Dark energy is based on a matter of tastes. Then my favorite color is teal green.

Zz.
 
  • #12
ZapperZ said:
Just because it is in GD doesn't mean that one can make unjustified claims either. The PF Rules applies globally.

It appears that your disagreement about Dark energy is based on a matter of tastes. Then my favorite color is teal green.

Zz.

OK.

Wikipedia said:
The dark matter component has much more mass than the "visible" component of the universe.[46] Only about 4.6% of the mass of the Universe is ordinary matter. About 23% is thought to be composed of dark matter. The remaining 72% is thought to consist of dark energy, an even stranger component, distributed diffusely in space.[47] Determining the nature of this missing mass is one of the most important problems in modern cosmology and particle physics. It has been noted that the names "dark matter" and "dark energy" serve mainly as expressions of human ignorance, much like the marking of early maps with "terra incognita".[47]

I'd note that "47" footnote links to: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-search-for-dark-matte

Scientific American!

You make the case that once the term "X" was used. Well, times change, and nomenclature does as well. So, again, in these cases where "Dark" is becoming UNFORTUNATELY synonymous with "X", we could just as easily lose the prefix and the ensuing confusion.

To quote this site: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2009215&postcount=8

marcus said:
Originally Posted by Lord Einstein
isnt all this called dark matter?

No. In cosmology the term dark matter has a definite meaning. Dark matter has not come up in this discussion thread.

Kashlinsky's team thought they had detected a slight statistical drift in a large sample of galaxies---ordinary visible galaxies made of ordinary matter.

It turned out later that they probably made some errors. They wrote two papers, we will see if those papers are quickly forgotten, or if they trigger a bunch of follow-up papers. If the consensus is that Kashlinsky was wrong then we won't hear anymore about it.

Meanwhile Kashlinsky, back in October or November, wants some public attention so he calls what he found a "dark flow". There is no scientific reason for him to use the word "dark". Perhaps he does it because dark resonates with mysterious intriguing things like dark matter and dark energy, already in the public mind. Or because it's become a buzz-word. In any case he calls his statistical drift of galaxies (which may not exist after all) by the name "dark" and it makes it sound more exciting.

Is this more in line with the standards for GD?

edit: I should say, does this explain that my view is based on more than arbitrary taste, but that it is a concern shared by those you trust to advise others here, and the magazine which helps to sponsor you?
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Jimmy Snyder: I don't like dark matter and dark energy. Does that mean that they don't exist?
Sean Carroll: No, the universe doesn't care about your asthetic sensibilities.

(that's a paraphrase, not a quote)

I went to a lecture by Professor Carroll at Stony Brook University. I don't recall the title of his talk, but the theme was "If you don't like dark matter and dark energy ..." He tried to be as open as he could to the idea that there were flaws in the equations and that by tweaking them you might be able to overcome the distasteful conclusion. He went through various equations tweaking exponents, coefficients, and terms with abandon. However, in every case he found that the experimental data put such constraints on the parameters in the functions that you either failed to do away with the dark stuff, or you introduced other effects that were even more distasteful. He came to no definite answer to satisfy those of us who fell that the dark stuff is unsettling, but he did convey to me the idea that without more data, we had no better theory in sight.
 
  • #14
Jimmy Snyder said:
Jimmy Snyder: I don't like dark matter and dark energy. Does that mean that they don't exist?
Sean Carroll: No, the universe doesn't care about your asthetic sensibilities.

(that's a paraphrase, not a quote)

I went to a lecture by Professor Carroll at Stony Brook University. I don't recall the title of his talk, but the theme was "If you don't like dark matter and dark energy ..." He tried to be as open as he could to the idea that there were flaws in the equations and that by tweaking them you might be able to overcome the distasteful conclusion. He went through various equations tweaking exponents, coefficients, and terms with abandon. However, in every case he found that the experimental data put such constraints on the parameters in the functions that you either failed to do away with the dark stuff, or you introduced other effects that were even more distasteful. He came to no definite answer to satisfy those of us who fell that the dark stuff is unsettling, but he did convey to me the idea that without more data, we had no better theory in sight.

For myself, I feel that Dark Matter is as well observed as we can expect it to be for now, but it does appear to be a real "thing". Dark Energy could be one thing, or many... if it adds up at the end of the day, given the total lack of a viable theory, does it matter? Dark Flow could literally be a 'blip on the radar'.

Does that sound about right? Yes, there is some weird 'stuff' called "Dark Matter" that makes up a portion of the mass out there, and another portion is "Dark Energy". The former might be one of several existing theories, such as WIMPs, or sterile neutrinos, but it's probably a single kind of matter. Dark Energy is just a catch-all to answer how the universe is doing what we observe it to do: accelerate in its expansion.
 
  • #15
nismaratwork said:
For myself, I feel that Dark Matter is as well observed as we can expect it to be for now, but it does appear to be a real "thing". Dark Energy could be one thing, or many... if it adds up at the end of the day, given the total lack of a viable theory, does it matter? Dark Flow could literally be a 'blip on the radar'.

Does that sound about right? Yes, there is some weird 'stuff' called "Dark Matter" that makes up a portion of the mass out there, and another portion is "Dark Energy". The former might be one of several existing theories, such as WIMPs, or sterile neutrinos, but it's probably a single kind of matter. Dark Energy is just a catch-all to answer how the universe is doing what we observe it to do: accelerate in its expansion.

Dark matter and dark energy is at present an operational hypothesis, a basis for further research. No one has settled for this conclusion.
 
  • #16
Jarle said:
Dark matter and dark energy is at present an operational hypothesis, a basis for further research. No one has settled for this conclusion.

I beg to differ; if Dark Matter turns out to be something OTHER than matter, it seems AFAIK that it would require re-writing physics. The most we seem to know about dark energy is that vacuum expectation energy doesn't cut it. On is an operational hypothesis, the other is just "X".
 
  • #17
Nano-Passion said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is that of virtual particles that affect space and gravity.

Well I think you’re wrong. Dark Matter (DM) is not made of virtual particles; the main candidates are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles" (MACHO).

And lately "sterile neutrinos" is one possible solution to get https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=461353".

Regarding Dark Energy (DE) the problem is somewhat tougher, because if we compare the vacuum energy and the force needed for Dark Energy, wet get a difference of 1 to 10−120 ... :bugeye:

I.e. not that easy to "level out" in any mathematical formula ...

... but Rome wasn't built in a day, so I really don’t understand the 'indignation'. :rolleyes:


Now Zz can correct my faults (there’s probably several) :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
DevilsAvocado said:
Well I think you’re wrong. Dark Matter (DM) is not made of virtual particles; the main candidates are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakly_interacting_massive_particles" (MACHO).

And lately "sterile neutrinos" is one possible solution to get https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=461353".

Regarding Dark Energy (DE) the problem is somewhat tougher, because if we compare the vacuum energy and the force needed for Dark Energy, wet get a difference of 1 to 10−120 ... :bugeye:

I.e. not that easy to "level out" in any mathematical formula ...

... but Rome wasn't built in a day, so I really don’t understand the 'indignation'. :rolleyes:Now Zz can correct my faults (there’s probably several) :smile:
edit: bolding mine

There is something odd about demanding instant answers to some of the most emergent and baffling questions in physics. Nobody ever marvels at LASERS... they just cry that we can't show them the inside of a black hole.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
nismaratwork said:
... they just cry that we can't show them the inside of a black hole.

Don’t say that to a Frenchman because he will probably hit you in the face! :smile:
 
  • #20
DevilsAvocado said:
Don’t say that to a Frenchman because he will probably hit you in the face! :smile:

:blushing: I didn't think of that! DA... :biggrin:
 
  • #21
:smile: :smile: :smile:
 
  • #22
Nano-Passion said:
Correct me if I'm wrong. The theory of dark matter and dark energy is that of virtual particles that affect space and gravity.

Ever find one, yet?

Pengwuino said:
That's not a scapegoat. We just gave the phenomena names. Calling them dark this or dark that doesn't mean we're giving a definition or explanation to what they are.

I'll buy that. :) I hope we find a better answer somewhere down the road.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Fair enough, you guys brought up really good points. Thanks for the enlightenment. =D

Though it is still a hypothesis; other opinions are that our understanding of gravity isn't as complete as we thought it was. My opinion is leaning towards the latter.
 
  • #24
Nano-Passion said:
Fair enough, you guys brought up really good points. Thanks for the enlightenment. =D

Though it is still a hypothesis; other opinions are that our understanding of gravity isn't as complete as we thought it was. My opinion is leaning towards the latter.

nismaratwork said:
There is something odd about demanding instant answers to some of the most emergent and baffling questions in physics.

Yes, I agree. Despite our best efforts, we keeping coming across some rather interesting, mind-pausing phenomena. If anything, I think the best is yet to come. :)
 
  • #25
I am having a hard time reining in my inner R. Lee Ermey. "You want to know what grinds my gears? You do!"

This is one of the least informed criticisms I have heard. Ever. Seriously.

Many of the other points have been touched on by others (I particularly like the comparisons with x-rays), but people have been thinking about modifications of gravity since 1983. Nineteen-bleeping-eighty-three. If you had bothered to chug on over to a library... wait. I'm channeling R. Lee Ermey again.

It's your own ignorance and misunderstandings that are leading you astray - but rather than asking to be enlightened, your reaction is "all those scientists are doing it wrong". Bah.

If you have a moment, I encourage you to read Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" on self-appointed experts. Everyone should.

Tissue?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
Vanadium 50 said:
I am having a hard time reining in my inner R. Lee Ermey. "You want to know what grinds my gears? You do!"

This is one of the least informed criticisms I have heard. Ever. Seriously.

Many of the other points have been touched on by others (I particularly like the comparisons with x-rays), but people have been thinking about modifications of gravity since 1983. Nineteen-bleeping-eighty-three. If you had bothered to chug on over to a library... wait. I'm channeling R. Lee Ermey again.

It's your own ignorance and misunderstandings that are leading you astray - but rather than asking to be enlightened, your reaction is "all those scientists are doing it wrong". Bah.

If you have a moment, I encourage you to read Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" on self-appointed experts. Everyone should.

Tissue?

Again, I'd draw a sharp distinction between Dark Matter, which appears to be just what its name implies. I don't believe that GR is going to be modified in a way that somehow allows for observation to agree with theory. Personally, my vote is for WIMPs.

On the other hand, Dark Energy is nothing like its name implies, and it leads to the kind of tissue-wringing performance we see above :wink: when people assume that anything with "Dark" as a prefix is junk. Look at Dark Flow... why DARK except to associate with the solidity, so to speak, of CDM theories?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
Vanadium 50 said:
I am having a hard time reining in my inner R. Lee Ermey. "You want to know what grinds my gears? You do!"

This is one of the least informed criticisms I have heard. Ever. Seriously.

Many of the other points have been touched on by others (I particularly like the comparisons with x-rays), but people have been thinking about modifications of gravity since 1983. Nineteen-bleeping-eighty-three. If you had bothered to chug on over to a library... wait. I'm channeling R. Lee Ermey again.

It's your own ignorance and misunderstandings that are leading you astray - but rather than asking to be enlightened, your reaction is "all those scientists are doing it wrong". Bah.

If you have a moment, I encourage you to read Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" on self-appointed experts. Everyone should.

Tissue?

You forgot to call him a jackwagon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Vanadium 50 said:
I am having a hard time reining in my inner R. Lee Ermey. "You want to know what grinds my gears? You do!"

This is one of the least informed criticisms I have heard. Ever. Seriously.

Many of the other points have been touched on by others (I particularly like the comparisons with x-rays), but people have been thinking about modifications of gravity since 1983. Nineteen-bleeping-eighty-three. If you had bothered to chug on over to a library... wait. I'm channeling R. Lee Ermey again.

It's your own ignorance and misunderstandings that are leading you astray - but rather than asking to be enlightened, your reaction is "all those scientists are doing it wrong". Bah.

If you have a moment, I encourage you to read Steve Dutch's http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm" on self-appointed experts. Everyone should.

Tissue?

Enlightenment is not about simply following the media. With that said, it is the easy way to introduce a new particle (WIMPS, MACHOS, etc.) or a new phenomena to adjust the discrepancy of our mathematical prowess.

I did not claim to be an expert of the field; though I am speculating that there may be a connection between gravity and some other phenomena that we just haven't noticed yet. That may be only noticeable when it comes to very large areas of mass (galaxies, etc.)

The greatest mysteries and breakthroughs don't necessarily take 19 years... Just look at Newton's Gravity which took us 300 years to adjust. Your logic is very flawed.

You hold on to your belief to the solution to the dark phenomena; but call mine ignorant... Which is simply another belief to a different solution to the dark phenomena. Both held by reputable scientists if I may add.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
This entire thread feels like a mix between physics and some form of philosophical debate.

You're not an expert, but you're speculating about some undiscovered connection? That's all very nice, but I find myself inclined to go with the experts in this case.

If something better comes up in the future then great, we'll amend our views to suit. But for know this is the best we have. It is only through the constant tweaking of our mathematics that we can develop our concepts into more reliable solutions.
 
  • #30
Nano-Passion said:
You hold on to your belief to the solution to the dark phenomena; but call mine ignorant... Which is simply another belief to a different solution to the dark phenomena. Both held by reputable scientists if I may add.

I didn't see V50 profess a belief in ANY solution to the "dark phenomena," so I have no idea what you're talking about. Please be more specific in your criticisms.
 

Similar threads

Graduate LQG Legend Writes Paper Claiming GR Explains Dark Matter Phenomena
  • · Replies 264 ·
9
Replies
264
Views
24K
Undergrad Effect of Dark Matter on fast moving bodies
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Undergrad Is There A Simple Dark Matter Solution Rooted In GR?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Undergrad New Paper Claims Primordial Black Holes Don't Explain Dark Matter
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
Undergrad Dark energy questioning Relativity?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
Graduate Erik Verlinde's new view on dark matter
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
19K
High School What's the deal with dark matter
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
8K
High School Dark Energy & Expansion of Spacetime
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad New Problems I have with Dark Matter
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K