Dark Matter

[SimonJ1966]

Hi, i really am on shaky ground here. What i know about philoosophy can be written on a postage stamp, yet alone the philosophy of science.

I have read quite a bit of "popular science" based books and articals on Astronomy that cover the topic of Dark Matter.

I can appreciate the hypothesis of its existence, as being inferred from the rate of rotation of Galaxies not fitting that expected from the visible mass, or calculations of universal mass, universal expansion, universal constants and so forth inferring its existence too.

Whats is the "philosophical" view of theories that can only "infer" such things as Dark Matter, especially when its beleived Dark Matter may make up 94% of the universes mass? Do you simply accept it to be a good theory because its based on good science and is well supported, or should one hold some doubt, even though i have no reason to doubt the science behind it.

I'd love to hear other schools of thought

Cheers

Simon

 

[TobiasTheViking]

IANAP. But the way i look at it is as an artifact. There is no evidence for most of the Dark Matter. But the models don't work without it, so i simply see it as an artifact that we have to work with, for now.

Like we have tachyons in certain theories, we don't know if they exist or anything, but they are needed by the theory, so, for now atleast, it is just an artifact.

But then again, IANAP

 

[BillyJoe]

What i know about philoosophy can be written on a postage stamp, yet alone the philosophy of science.

I can write "philosophy" on a postage stamp, but I'm really struggling with "philosophy and science".

I have read quite a bit of "popular science" based books and articals on Astronomy that cover the topic of Dark Matter.

At least it's appropriately named.

I can appreciate the hypothesis of its existence, as being inferred from the rate of rotation of Galaxies not fitting that expected from the visible mass, or calculations of universal mass, universal expansion, universal constants and so forth inferring its existence too.

Yes, the evidence points to the existence of more mass than is visible in the universe so it must be invisible.

Whats is the "philosophical" view of theories that can only "infer" such things as Dark Matter, especially when its beleived Dark Matter may make up 94% of the universes mass? Do you simply accept it to be a good theory because its based on good science and is well supported, or should one hold some doubt, even though i have no reason to doubt the science behind it.

It is good philosophy because it is based on science.
And it is good science because it is based on evidence.
The evidence is indirect but it all points to the existence of more matter than is visible, so what better name to give it than "Dark Matter". No pretense that we have found out what it is but, rather, a continuing search for direct evidence of it's existence.
And a willingness to entertain alternative theories which are not contradicted by the evidence.


What about Multiverse though?
It could explain the universal constants but it is massive (beside which the known universe is but a vanishingly small peck) and we will probably never find out if it exists.


Why didn't you pick on that?


BJ

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hi, i really am on shaky ground here. What i know about philoosophy can be written on a postage stamp, yet alone the philosophy of science.

I have read quite a bit of "popular science" based books and articals on Astronomy that cover the topic of Dark Matter.

I can appreciate the hypothesis of its existence, as being inferred from the rate of rotation of Galaxies not fitting that expected from the visible mass, or calculations of universal mass, universal expansion, universal constants and so forth inferring its existence too.

Whats is the "philosophical" view of theories that can only "infer" such things as Dark Matter, especially when its beleived Dark Matter may make up 94% of the universes mass? Do you simply accept it to be a good theory because its based on good science and is well supported, or should one hold some doubt, even though i have no reason to doubt the science behind it.

I'd love to hear other schools of thought

Cheers

Simon

This doesn't really have anything to do with philosophy of science. This is well within the realms of science itself. The problem is that this area of physics is largely conjecture. We do not really understand gravity. There are several problems, the worst of which are the failure to understand how the Universe manages to gravitationally hold itself together - forcing people to invent various sorts of "dark matter" - and the problem of the missing Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson is central to current theories of why objects have mass, but it has turned out to be very hard to find and many people are now openly wondering whether it even exists.

There is no reason why science cannot eventually find a solution to both these problems (or at least make significant progress on the current state of play). But there may be a scientific revolution (or two) required to get there.

 

[arthwollipot]

IANAP. But the way i look at it is as an artifact.

I'm with you. It's quite possible that there's a whole lot of exotic heavy matter out there which we can't detect, or at least we haven't detected yet. But I think that the "artifact" theory is more likely.

No, I don't mean a monolith.

 

[BillyJoe]

This doesn't really have anything to do with philosophy of science. This is well within the realms of science itself. The problem is that this area of physics is largely conjecture. We do not really understand gravity.

This is philosophy - in the service of science.
The other sort is.....well, a circle jerk.

There are several problems, the worst of which are the failure to understand how the Universe manages to gravitationally hold itself together - forcing people to invent various sorts of "dark matter" .

It's not an invention. It's an admission that they do not know (dark matter!)

and the problem of the missing Higgs Boson. The Higgs Boson is central to current theories of why objects have mass, but it has turned out to be very hard to find and many people are now openly wondering whether it even exists.

So much so that many are building a giant Large Hadron Collider in France to find it. The problem is that the Higgs Boson is rare. It is estimated that the detectors in this collider will capture 200 potentially important events every second, but the theory predicts that the Higgs Boson will appear just once every 24 hours - "a nanoneedle in a universe of haystacks".

 

[TobiasTheViking]

I'm with you. It's quite possible that there's a whole lot of exotic heavy matter out there which we can't detect, or at least we haven't detected yet. But I think that the "artifact" theory is more likely.

No, I don't mean a monolith.

As i said untill it is found i can't see it as anything but an artifact.

Though i do have my own pet theory(not in the scientific sence of course) about dark matter. I have tried to get someone to tell me why my theory is wrong, but no one has done it. I'm sure it is wrong though. oh well.

 

[arthwollipot]

OK, spill.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

My message from november.

Note: i asked this on the BAUT forum, but i didn't feel anyone told me why i was wrong. So i'm trying here now


Second Note: I'll admit as my first line that i am extremely ignorant of these subjects(on a math level), so i'm not trying to make a theory, or even a hypothesis here. Just want something explained.


As far as i understand Dark Matter is, for now, an artifact we use because galaxy rotation doesn't work without more matter around the galaxy. That is, not in the center. Some Dark Matter have been found, but the majority of the matter needed is still not verified.

So, studying some M-Theory(just for haha's) i got an idea. It is most likely wrong(on par with the, go out one side of the universe and come in the other, ideas you get as a 12 year old). But still.

The graviton would be a looped string, not fixed on our brane(in contrast to the other forces). Which means gravity can leave our brane, and influence other branes. So if M-Theory is actually reality, and not just a phillosophy(have there been made a test or observation that updates it to theory yet?), could it be that matter in other branes next to us, could be (some of) the Dark Matter we still haven't found.

If we have a lot of branes next to each other. And look through them(for a 2d image, place them on top of each other and look down through them) have a somewhat uniform attraction across the sum of the branes. So gravity in the center of the galaxies isn't that much more than at the edges of the galaxy.

Of course it could also end up as galaxies having about the same position in all the branes, simply because they are being attracted to each other.


As i stated, i don't know that much on the subject, and this idea is most likely completely wrong, and build on the fact that there is certain information on how M-Theory works that i don't comprehend(or have never been explained to me).

But i would very much like to know why this could NOT be the case.

Sincerely
Tobias.

 

[BillyJoe]

Oh Toby, you are just a baby. How can you expect a grown up person to explain this thing to a such a little one. Go back to sleep now, darling, and let the big people do the thinking. BJ

 

[TobiasTheViking]

*sob*

 

[Molinaro]

Just another point about the evidence.. it's not just galaxy rotation that leads to the conclusion that dark matter must be there.

The other is gravitational lensing. This is the technique, predicted by Einstein, whereby a relatively close galaxy cluster will act as a lense and magnify much more distant galaxies, smearing them into arcs of light. This lensing effect gives a very good measure of the mass, and mass distribution of the galaxy cluster. Using this technique, it corroberates the idea that most of the mass is 'invisible'.

 

[KingMerv00]

Just another point about the evidence.. it's not just galaxy rotation that leads to the conclusion that dark matter must be there.

The other is gravitational lensing. This is the technique, predicted by Einstein, whereby a relatively close galaxy cluster will act as a lense and magnify much more distant galaxies, smearing them into arcs of light. This lensing effect gives a very good measure of the mass, and mass distribution of the galaxy cluster. Using this technique, it corroberates the idea that most of the mass is 'invisible'.

Neat.

 

[arthwollipot]

Tobias, your idea came up in Scientific American about a year ago. And it was from people who did the math.

So you're on the right track. Or at least, on one of the right tracks. There seem to be several at the moment.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

Tobias, your idea came up in Scientific American about a year ago. And it was from people who did the math.

So you're on the right track. Or at least, on one of the right tracks. There seem to be several at the moment.

wtf, i don't believe it. There has to be a flaw, there has too. hm.. Thanks, i'll see if i can find the article.