Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery

Cannabis Seeds Zamnesia
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
A Dark Matter Thread
    #10903594 -

I think that dark matter ( *ehem* *invisible mass* ) is kind of like the 'aether'.

Back then, physicists assumed that waves needed something to propagate, so they inferred the existence of a non-material substance called aether from the discovery of wave behavior in photons.

Nowadays, physicists assume that large scale gravitational effects are caused by quantised 'matter', so they infer the existence of invisible matter from the discovery of exaggerated movement in collections of stars.

The main difference is that aether was posited to exist in our backyard and was thus disproved, allowing the furthering of science; but invisible mass could just be really far away

How do you feel that this analogy is not apt?

Another point I wanted to discuss is whether or not invisible mass must be spatially arranged in any particulate manner that we are used to?

I was at a set of lectures tonight for the opening of a Science festival at the Powerhouse Museum here in Sydney. The final lecture was by a guy who is heading some research on Dark Matter. I spoke to him afterwards and he seemed to think that there was no reason why dark matter couldn't be some sort of unclassifiable (in our current scientific terms) changing substance, but since there is no current model that explains this effectively, science takes its strongest assumption - that the phenomenon can be explained like the rest of the phenomenon. Just as they once assumed that the new wave behavior was like other wave behavior, they are now assuming that the new gravitational phenomenon is explained by something just like the rest of the gravitational phenomenon we know of.


Imagine if you lived on the Quantum scale... and you discovered the laws of physics were not fitting your expectations when you looked out to the mega-scale that we humans live in currently. It might be similar with us looking out to the mega-scale of galaxies. There may be phenomenon that occur (determinably) only at that grand scale, which is fuckin huge! And other phenomenon that can be perceived only at a grander scale again. It would not be right to hold on to old paradigms simply for some sort of 'Occam's Razor's sake. (imo)

They talk of dark matter particles, but dark matter has only been seen on the galactic scale...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10906615 -

Not sure I have anything much to add, but interesting stuff :wink:

Aether sounds kinda cool...

Isn't a true vacuum impossible?


--------------------
Jesus loves you.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10906755 -

A major difference I see between dark matter and aether is that evidence points towards the existence of dark matter but against the existence of aether.  Its all about the evidence.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: andrewss]
    #10906771 -

andrewss said:
Isn't a true vacuum impossible?


Depends on how you define a vacuum.  :wink:  But in the strictest sense, no it is not possible.  Virtual and tunneling particles will get in the way.  But often times a vacuum is not defined so rigidly (for practical purposes).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10907677 -

Quote:
How do you feel that this analogy is not apt?


It's a very good analogy. In the 19th century it would have been perfectly reasonable to assume that the aether is real, since at the time all waves were known to travel through a medium. Therefore if light is a wave it must travel through a medium. This is a good argument in favour of the aether; it wasn't until it was disproven by experimentation that the theory was dropped.

It's the same with dark matter. Since our current knowledge of the universe is best explained by dark matter, it's reasonable to accept it until new experiments are performed that disproves the existence of dark matter.

The problem is, many people on this forum have been taking the analogy with aether (and other old-fashioned theories) and twisting it. ie, "scientists were wrong about aether, so they're probably wrong about dark matter too". Right, but scientists were correct about radiation and special relativity.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: DieCommie]
    #10908265 -

To qu
Qubit said:
A major difference I see between dark matter and aether is that evidence points towards the existence of dark matter but against the existence of aether.  Its all about the evidence.


Im having trouble seeing how the evidence scenario is any different.

As it is, Dark matter has evidence for it but only because it is defined by discrepancies in data. To give it qualities is premature, other than to give it 'mass' qualities, and some level of localisation in the universe.
Rather, though, huge amounts of money are going into laboratories designed to detect the effects of 'dark matter particles'. These particles are completely unevidenced. Unforutnately though, the tools designed to detect dark matter can only be used to show that it is there, but cannot be used to say that it is not there.

Unlike the Michelson-Morley experiment.

After reading about the aether a bit more though, it is starting to seem that it (or something like it) may still be a plausible notion... the medium of the whole universe...


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10908377 -

As it is, Dark matter has evidence for it but only because it is defined by discrepancies in data.

Not discrepancies in the data, the data comes back the same every time they look (within a high tolerance).  The discrepancy is between a non-dark matter model and the data.

To give it qualities is premature, other than to give it 'mass' qualities, and some level of localisation in the universe.

Also it has the quality of not interacting with E&M (light).  Any other qualities attributed to it would be premature and hence no other qualities are attributed to it.

These particles are completely unevidenced.

No they're not.  The discrepancy between the data and the non-dark matter model is the evidence for dark matter.  Similarly the discrepancy between the data the the aether model is the evidence against aether.  When there is a discrepancy between a model and data then the model must be wrong or the data must be wrong.  People check and recheck the data before throwing out the model (Which happened in both the dark matter and aether case.  They wanted to be extra sure the data was correct before amending the model.)

Unforutnately though, the tools designed to detect dark matter can only be used to show that it is there, but cannot be used to say that it is not there.

:confused:  If observational data jived with the old non-dark matter theory then that would be evidence that it is not there and the idea would have never surfaced to begin with.

After reading about the aether a bit more though, it is starting to seem that it (or something like it) may still be a plausible notion... the medium of the whole universe...

Keep reading...  :smile:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10908391 -

Quote:
Unforutnately though, the tools designed to detect dark matter can only be used to show that it is there, but cannot be used to say that it is not there.


Well yeah, but that's the job for experiments to prove MOND. MOND is the main alternative theory to dark matter. If experiments are performed that produces evidence in favour of MOND, then it'll take over from dark matter as the leading theory. So far that has not happened. This does not mean that dark matter is 'undisprovable' though.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: DieCommie]
    #10908440 -

Qubit said:
As it is, Dark matter has evidence for it but only because it is defined by discrepancies in data.

Not discrepancies in the data, the data comes back the same every time they look (within a high tolerance).  The discrepancy is between a non-dark matter model and the data.

To give it qualities is premature, other than to give it 'mass' qualities, and some level of localisation in the universe.

Also it has the quality of not interacting with E&M (light).  Any other qualities attributed to it would be premature and hence no other qualities are attributed to it.

These particles are completely unevidenced.

No they're not.  The discrepancy between the data and the non-dark matter model is the evidence for dark matter.  Similarly the discrepancy between the data the the aether model is the evidence against aether.  When there is a discrepancy between a model and data then the model must be wrong or the data must be wrong.  People check and recheck the data before throwing out the model (Which happened in both the dark matter and aether case.  They wanted to be extra sure the data was correct before amending the model.)

Unforutnately though, the tools designed to detect dark matter can only be used to show that it is there, but cannot be used to say that it is not there.

:confused:  If observational data jived with the old non-dark matter theory then that would be evidence that it is not there and the idea would have never surfaced to begin with.

After reading about the aether a bit more though, it is starting to seem that it (or something like it) may still be a plausible notion... the medium of the whole universe...

Keep reading...  :smile:


I appreciate your response, but you have included a contradiction.

First you say that the only qualities given to dark matter are that it has mass, somewhat localised, and does not interact with EM radiation.

Then you say that the particulate quality of dark matter has been evidenced?

Where is this evidence?

ps. as for the aether concept, Im not referring to the old aether concept, but there are other forms that are newer and simply not developed enough to compete with dark matter theory


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: zouden]
    #10908447 -

Crazy, all the alternative theories Ive heard for dark matter of have been amendments to relativity not old newtonian gravity.  Thats why I like this forum, I keep on learnin. :thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: DieCommie]
    #10908465 -

Then you say that the particulate quality of dark matter has been evidenced?


Oh no sorry, I didnt mean their particle nature.  Just their existence in general.  Still, everything observed thus far has particle/wave natures so its not a crazy assumption dark matter also exhibits such a duality.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: DieCommie]
    #10908575 -

But this is the point I am getting at, it is assumed that this new phenomenon can be treated just like the rest... But the whole reason that this new phenomenon is posited at all is because 'the rest of science' does not predict our data

But I understand why scientists are being so conservative - if they suddenly posited something wildly different, requiring some sort of genius-imagination to discover (like that attributed to Einstein), no one would give them money


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10908610 -

They are simply making the least amount of assumptions possible where data and theory can jive.  So this hypothetical matter only differs from traditional matter in a few ways - unless new data shows it must vary in more ways.  Thats how science works doesnt it?  I think so.

Anyway, Im no specialist in astro/cosmology at all so I have already exhausted my knowledge here (and maybe even gone beyond that :blush:).

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Noteworthy]
    #10908630 -

I think Dark Matter and Dark Energy are just placeholders for things that our current standard model can't explain.  It will take another paradigm shift to explain what's really going on with them.  I also suspect that once we understand quantum gravity, we'll be able to do away with the strong and weak nuclear force, and just have two fundamental forces in our universe.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: Silversoul]
    #10908706 -

The weak and E&M have already been unified in the electroweak theory, the strong is unified with those in the less developed grand unification theory.  Im curious where you get your suspicions about fundamental physics from?

Also, you dont consider dark matter and dark energy to be paradigm shifts?  hmmm...

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: A Dark Matter Thread [Re: DieCommie]
    #10910405 -

Qubit said:
The weak and E&M have already been unified in the electroweak theory, the strong is unified with those in the less developed grand unification theory.  Im curious where you get your suspicions about fundamental physics from?


Just a hunch.  The strong and weak forces seem a bit ill-defined for me.  And given the fact that quantum gravity has yet to be understood, I have a feeling that it would shed some light on the subject once we have a better understanding of it.  But I don't claim to be a physicist, so don't mind me.

Quote:
Also, you dont consider dark matter and dark energy to be paradigm shifts?  hmmm...


Considering that we don't know what the hell they are, no.  All they are right now are variables for unknown forces and/or substances which comprise a greater portion of the universe than what our current models can describe.  All we know is that there is variable X which we label "dark matter" and variable Y which we label "dark energy."  This is not a paradigm shift.  It's an aberration to our current models.  And when you have such aberrations, particularly if they include a greater portion of the universe than the current model describes, that's a sign that a paradigm shift is ready to happen.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Unfolding Nature Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Official Truth Thread - No jokes please!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 all )		 World Spirit 19,948 178 10/31/02 12:23 AM
by Strumpling
* Why is the sky dark at night?
( 1 2 all )		 In(di)go 2,532 37 01/21/03 06:34 AM
by infidelGOD
* matter smushed CleverName 800 10 10/08/02 05:37 PM
by Metasyn
* The *OFFICIAL* Co-Incidences Thread
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 nubious 5,727 61 07/29/03 01:07 PM
by Source
* The approaching revolution in particle physics distortopia 1,337 16 09/14/05 02:55 PM
by IgnatiusJReilly
* No Evolution threads allowed.
( 1 2 all )		 sir tripsalot 3,568 29 10/04/02 11:50 PM
by Anonymous
* anyone feeling dark lately?
( 1 2 3 all )		 Zero7a1 6,635 50 12/21/02 05:16 AM
by Zero7a1
* the unauthorized 'Let it flow...' poetry thread!
( 1 2 all )		 KeepAskingTime 3,289 37 02/20/02 01:58 AM
by Ulysees

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
475 topic views. 0 members, 30 guests and 14 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.045 seconds spending 0.022 seconds on 16 queries.