| We do have a pretty substansive evidence that dark matter exists: from the cosmic background radiation, gravitational lensing, galaxy formation simulations, galaxy rotation curves, etc. Why is it so hard for people to believe that there are some particles that are not interacting with electromagnetism that we haven't detected directly yet? It's not even a precedent, the neutrino is just like that. I guess the name "dark" matter was a mistake because it implies something weird, when in fact it just means whatever this is, doesn't have electric (or chromo) charge. |
| |
| ▲ | rhdunn 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | We have concrete evidence that either a) a new type of matter and energy exists, or b) our theories need to be modified in some way. The orbit of planets in our solar system have hinted at missing matter several times -- one time it lead to the discovery of a new planet (Uranus or Neptune, IIRC); one time it lead to the discovery of General Relativity. Until we either detect dark matter/energy, or develop a theory that accurately predicts the behaviour we're attributing to dark matter we cannot say one way or the other which is the correct approach. It could also be that we are not accurately modelling EM/SR/GR effects at a large scale, such as how they are warped by the different stars orbiting the arms of the galaxies. Or that when we extend QED/QCD to accelerating reference frames (general relativity) that dark matter won't be needed, just like how QED was formulated by extending electromagnetism/QM to special relativity (non-accelerating reference frames). | | |
| ▲ | dventimi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | "We have concrete evidence that either a) a new type of matter and energy exists, or b) our theories need to be modified in some way." a new type of matter is a modification to our theories "Until we either detect dark matter/energy, or develop a theory that accurately predicts the behaviour we're attributing to dark matter we cannot say one way or the other which is the correct approach." "We" the general public isn't in the business of saying one way or the other is the correct approach, and scientists aren't, either. Scientists conduct experiments and propose theories in whatever lines of inquiry interest them, subject to the constraints of getting somebody to pay for it. Many scientists have been interested in refining the theory of Dark Matter and subjecting those refinements to experimental tests, partly because the theory has withstood and only grown stronger by those refinements and tests. That's a success by any measure, and that success is partly why public funding agencies have been willing to pay for it. Like anybody else, they try to pick winners. It could also be that we are not accurately modelling EM/SR/GR effects at a large scale, such as how they are warped by the different stars orbiting the arms of the galaxies. Or that when we extend QED/QCD to accelerating reference frames (general relativity) that dark matter won't be needed, just like how QED was formulated by extending electromagnetism/QM to special relativity (non-accelerating reference frames). It could be. Anything's possible. |
| |
| ▲ | dventimi 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I agree with you. "Dark Matter" (and "Dark Energy") are colorful (colorless?) names that I think helped these theories diffuse into the popular consciousness at a time when popular interest in science was at a high-water mark (remember when "chaos theory" was fashionable?). As I mentioned in another comment recently (it feels like a "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" headline trends on HN almost every day), this coded these theories as "exotic" or "weird" as you say, and invited speculation about Dark Matter and even an urge to overturn it among laypeople who equated "exotic" with "tendentious." But, as you suggest, personally I don't regard Dark Matter as all that exotic. We already know about some species of "dark matter": the neutrino is one, and before that there was the neutron. Oh, well. I suppose there will be another episode on HN in a day or so. | | |
| ▲ | notfed 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | Had we named it "invisible matter", perhaps not as much controversy would surround it. | | |
| ▲ | mr_mitm 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | The controversy exists only in laypeople cirlces to be honest. Consesus among actual scientists is pretty firm. | | |
| ▲ | dventimi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but it might've tamped down any perceived controversy even among laypeople, which would've saved many priceless electrons being spent debating the issue on the internet. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | DoneWithAllThat 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not trying to be a mindless skeptic but your “why is it so hard” question seems bizarre to me. It seems quite understandable that it’s hard for people to believe there’s a particle responsible for a significant percentage of all matter in the universe that we have no direct evidence of and the only reason it’s believed to exist at all is because a lot of otherwise well-understood equations and observations require it to exist. | | |
| ▲ | dventimi 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "the only reason it’s believed to exist at all is because a lot of otherwise well-understood equations and observations require it to exist." I mean...those are pretty good reasons. If a particular theory successfully predicts more out of "a lot" of observations than any other competing theory does, and is a smaller departure from "a lot" of existing theory than any other competing theory is, would you choose to spend your career researching those competing theories? | |
| ▲ | tekla 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If people understood that the last 200 years of science has shown that we are still utterly ignorant about the underpinnings of the universe, they might accept it better. But we are not very well educated so yeah, they will doubt it for no good reason other than "it doesn't feel right" | | |
| ▲ | dventimi 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | "If people understood that the last 200 years of science has shown that we are still utterly ignorant about the underpinnings of the universe" That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think? "But we are not very well educated so yeah, they will doubt it for no good reason other than "it doesn't feel right" That's also an exaggeration. Laypersons are under no more obligation to understand the details of the scientific professions than scientists are to understand the details of, say, the legal profession. A healthy skepticism within the general public is harmless and even helpful if it maintains an interest in science. I would just gently urge people not to veer from skepticism into dogmatism. |
|
|
|
