Dark Matter Image

[aja8888]

1. Have warp drive, but limited to warp 5 (using the original Franz Joseph cubic equation methodology)
2. Have star-gates (ala Stargate) but no warp drive ships.

Who is building warp-drive ships these days? Musk? GM? We need to get a handle on this.

 

[eytonxav]

Who is building warp-drive ships these days? Musk? GM? We need to get a handle on this.

China is supposedly developing spacecraft with ion drive, similar to what satellite use. Could potentially shorten the mission to mars if viable.

 

[eytonxav]

Maybe it is OK but I just thought one should know about this warning. Sorry I don’t mean to shut down discussion.

Not an issue at all, you posted useful info, but hard to say if it actually contains a trojan.

 

[REWahoo]

Not an issue at all, you posted useful info, but hard to say if it actually contains a trojan.

A Durex maybe?

 

[Freedom56]

I'm not knocking astronomers but before the Viking 1 landing on mars, many astronomers theorized that there were canals on Mars. Viking 1 confirmed that Mars is a dead planet. Dark matter is still just a theory chasing research dollars and will live on until some other theory gains traction. What we do know is that the universe is vast. The distances between solar system are measured in light years rendering interstellar travel impossible with current technology. Perhaps that was by design to prevent species from invading and destroying each other.

 

[braumeister]

I'm not knocking astronomers but before the Viking 1 landing on mars, many astronomers theorized that there were canals on Mars.

Well, not since about 1909.

 

[eytonxav]

A Durex maybe?

 

[eytonxav]

I'm not knocking astronomers but before the Viking 1 landing on mars, many astronomers theorized that there were canals on Mars. Viking 1 confirmed that Mars is a dead planet. Dark matter is still just a theory chasing research dollars and will live on until some other theory gains traction. What we do know is that the universe is vast. The distances between solar system are measured in light years rendering interstellar travel impossible with current technology. Perhaps that was by design to prevent species from invading and destroying each other.

Wasn't the canal theory from the 1800s?

 

[aja8888]

Interesting article.....

Dark Horses in The Cosmos!

Could primordial black holes from the beginning of time explain ‘dark matter’, the mysterious missing mass in the Universe?

The Universe began as a strange sort of soup. Large galaxies hadn’t yet formed, and flying particles were hotter than the centres of stars in the Universe today. Of these, tiny particles known as quarks clumped together to form the building blocks of atoms: neutrons, protons and electrons. Through a process called cosmic inflation, the Universe expanded like a balloon, smoothing out the clumps.

It could be that the missing matter of the Universe – called dark matter by physicists – formed then, too. Dark matter is one of astronomy’s notorious mysteries. Evidence has grown over the past century that there must be something out there besides the stuff that makes up our tables, our planet, even ourselves. An early hint, in the 1970s, came from the astronomer Vera Rubin, who showed that stars at the edges of galaxies rotate faster than we’d expect from just the mass we can see through telescopes. Something else heavy had to be there, exerting enough gravity to make the galaxies spin. Since the 1980s, astronomers have agreed: dark matter must exist to explain that ‘missing mass’ in our observations, but we can’t see it since it doesn’t interact with light in the typical ways. Our current best estimates show that there should be about five times as much dark matter as ‘regular’ matter in the Universe. In fact, all the things we interact with in our daily lives make up less than 5 per cent of the matter in the Universe.

https://aeon.co/essays/how-primordi...ail&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-eb4cd644b3-72765052

 

[corn18]

My current theory is that dark matter/energy exists in another dimension we cannot observe directly. Kindof how gravity in a 3D universe would influence the 2D universe but the observer in the 2D universe would not be able to see the 3D object but could observe the effects of the 3D object. They would have to make up dark energy and matter to explain their 2D universe.

 

[ncbill]

As someone with a long-standing interest in physics and cosmology, I don't think this is accurate. I probably read 2-3 "hard science" books about these kinds of topics every year, and my understanding is that dark matter was not simply invented to make certain equations balance. There are decades of observations that show most (maybe all?) galaxies have too little ordinary/visible matter to hold together and spin as they do. Dark matter, whatever it is, is the missing stuff that interacts gravitationally with ordinary matter so that galaxies and other supermassive structures (like galaxy clusters, filaments, etc.) coalesce, hold together, and stay gravitationally bound. I would say that the existence of dark matter (albeit not its precise nature) is as well-established and accepted by physicists today as is the existence of, say, black holes. Neither can be directly observed, for various reasons, but their existence can be inferred with high confidence using standard, well-established methods of observation, experimentation, and theoretical analysis. This kind of indirect discovery happens all the time in science and doesn't equate to simply "inventing" things or coming up with "fudge factors" just to make equations balance.

Dark energy, on the other hand, does fall slightly more into the "fudge factor" realm, although just slightly so. But that's a topic for another day.

Sounds more like we still don't understand how gravity works, not that there somehow must be a mass equivalence that fits our current theories.

As corn18 notes IIRC one of the current theories is that gravity, especially given its marked weakness compared to the other fundamental forces, operates in additional dimensions we cannot currently quantify.

 

[Sojourner]

Sounds more like we still don't understand how gravity works, not that there somehow must be a mass equivalence that fits our current theories.

As corn18 notes IIRC one of the current theories is that gravity, especially given its marked weakness compared to the other fundamental forces, operates in additional dimensions we cannot currently quantify.

Absolutely correct, @ncbill. The fundamental nature of gravity, especially at the quantum level, is still poorly understood... but the existence of gravity is clear and unequivocal. It's pretty much the same story for dark matter. Very poorly understood in terms of exactly what it is, but its existence is as well-established and accepted as things like black holes. Just because we can't directly observe certain things (dark matter, gravity/gravitons, black holes) doesn't mean we can't clearly infer their existence by the effects they have on other things that we can directly observe and measure.

 

[Sojourner]

Your explanation seems to refute your own premise.
If dark matter is as you described: "Dark matter, whatever it is, is the missing stuff that interacts ..."

Then yes you could describe dark matter as the stuff scientists have invented to make their equations and theories work.

E = mc2

c is a constant
m is mass/matter
E is energy

2 variables involved and scientists have Dark Energy and Dark Matter to fix this whenever their work does not fit the equation.

I wish I could have gotten away with that in my career. Would have made things a lot easier.

All due respect, it seems like you're implying that cosmologists and astronomers are simply inventing things out of thin air to explain their observations, and that all of the many thousands of other physicists/scientists worldwide are (and have been) just going along with it in some sort of mass self-delusion. I'm not even sure where to begin to refute such speculation. All I will say is that the field of professional physics (including cosmology) does not work that way, and I'm puzzled how any serious person could actually think that it does.

 

[SecondAttempt]

All due respect, it seems like you're implying that cosmologists and astronomers are simply inventing things out of thin air to explain their observations, and that all of the many thousands of other physicists/scientists worldwide are (and have been) just going along with it in some sort of mass self-delusion.

In many ways that is exactly what is going on. But it's not self delusion. It is simply that dark matter is currently the simplest explanation that fits the data.

We can't explain the observed behavior of galaxies without a lot more mass. So let's assume there is additional mass. But wait, if there is more mass we should be able to see it through observations. So let's call it dark matter and say it only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity.

Ah, now we are good. We have assumed our models are correct, we have assumed our understanding of gravity is correct. And we have assumed the existence of dark matter.

Then, after a few years, additional observations fail to agree with the ordinary matter plus dark matter model, specifically the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. So we need to make up a source of "pressure" driving the acceleration. It needs to be a form of energy and it likewise does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum so we call it dark energy.

Astronomers and cosmologists are smart people. I'm not being critical. I'm just saying that they did pretty much make up dark matter and dark energy.

Another good example is the Higgs boson. It was "made up" to explain an inconsistency in a theory. But we eventually dtected it.

 

[Spock]

All due respect, it seems like you're implying that cosmologists and astronomers are simply inventing things out of thin air to explain their observations, and that all of the many thousands of other physicists/scientists worldwide are (and have been) just going along with it in some sort of mass self-delusion. I'm not even sure where to begin to refute such speculation. All I will say is that the field of professional physics (including cosmology) does not work that way, and I'm puzzled how any serious person could actually think that it does.

I've been an electrical engineer since 1984. BSEE with minors in math and comp sci. The utter garbage that is being published as "science" by IEEE and other journals for the last decade is appalling. The bias of publishing material to meet social goals regardless of accuracy just make me shake my head in wonderment... it's like living in the movie Idiotcracy. The only reason I've remained an IEEE member is the group life insurance and I'm working on fixing that.

Perhaps it's just my cynicism going into overdrive, but "follow the science" just equates to "follow the money". I drew the analogy a couple of years ago that what little scientific debate remains is equivalent to monkeys throwing statistical poo at each other. They never achieve consensus, those with the alternate views just die off (that was before they were censured/canceled).

Now we get math and physics being labeled racist... I'll stay out of other current events as I'll get banned again.

TL/DR: science isn't what it used to be and I'll put more trust in a Zimbabwe Dollar than I will in the next published scientific break through.
The original post claiming "Scientists Have Captured The First Image of Dark Matter" is a perfect example.

 

[eytonxav]

TL/DR: science isn't what it used to be and I'll put more trust in a Zimbabwe Dollar than I will in the next published scientific break through.
The original post claiming "Scientists Have Captured The First Image of Dark Matter" is a perfect example.

Are you quoting me or from the link I posted? If the former, that is not correct.

 

[Spock]

Are you quoting me or from the link I posted? If the former, that is not correct.

Read what I quoted... it's the title of the linked article. No where in your post did you write ""Scientists Have Captured The First Image of Dark Matter".

 

[Sojourner]

In many ways that is exactly what is going on. But it's not self delusion. It is simply that dark matter is currently the simplest explanation that fits the data.

We can't explain the observed behavior of galaxies without a lot more mass. So let's assume there is additional mass. But wait, if there is more mass we should be able to see it through observations. So let's call it dark matter and say it only interacts with ordinary matter through gravity.

Ah, now we are good. We have assumed our models are correct, we have assumed our understanding of gravity is correct. And we have assumed the existence of dark matter.

Then, after a few years, additional observations fail to agree with the ordinary matter plus dark matter model, specifically the expansion of the universe seems to be accelerating. So we need to make up a source of "pressure" driving the acceleration. It needs to be a form of energy and it likewise does not interact with the electromagnetic spectrum so we call it dark energy.

Astronomers and cosmologists are smart people. I'm not being critical. I'm just saying that they did pretty much make up dark matter and dark energy.

Another good example is the Higgs boson. It was "made up" to explain an inconsistency in a theory. But we eventually dtected it.

Well, this is how science works in a sense. Theories are developed to explain observations, then those theories are tested, and they are either rejected, refined, or supported by further experiments and observations. So, yes, dark matter was "invented" to explain discrepancies between theory and observations, just like many, many other scientific discoveries throughout history.

Quantum mechanics was likewise "invented" in the early 1900s to explain the precise nature of black-box radiation and the photoelectric effect. Now here we are, over 100 years later, and quantum mechanics is the most accurate and extensively tested explanation we have of our universe at microscopic scales. Just because it was "invented" to explain new, puzzling observations doesn't mean it's not a good theory that captures something very real and tangible about our universe. The same can be said about dark matter (although obviously it's a much newer theory and hasn't been as well-established).

My objection to the use of words like "invented" and "fudge factor" in this thread is simply that they trivialize and (IMHO) mock the legitimate work of physicists who are trying to understand and explain the biggest and deepest mysteries in science. I get the impression that some folks here think that dark matter is something akin to a pseudoscientific theory like the Bermuda Triangle. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[eytonxav]

Read what I quoted... it's the title of the linked article. No where in your post did you write ""Scientists Have Captured The First Image of Dark Matter".

I did read it, but you referred to the original post which was by me. It contained a link to the article that you quoted but attributed it to the original post which is technically incorrect.

 

[Sojourner]

I've been an electrical engineer since 1984. BSEE with minors in math and comp sci. The utter garbage that is being published as "science" by IEEE and other journals for the last decade is appalling. The bias of publishing material to meet social goals regardless of accuracy just make me shake my head in wonderment... it's like living in the movie Idiotcracy. The only reason I've remained an IEEE member is the group life insurance and I'm working on fixing that.

Perhaps it's just my cynicism going into overdrive, but "follow the science" just equates to "follow the money". I drew the analogy a couple of years ago that what little scientific debate remains is equivalent to monkeys throwing statistical poo at each other. They never achieve consensus, those with the alternate views just die off (that was before they were censured/canceled).

Now we get math and physics being labeled racist... I'll stay out of other current events as I'll get banned again.

TL/DR: science isn't what it used to be and I'll put more trust in a Zimbabwe Dollar than I will in the next published scientific break through.
The original post claiming "Scientists Have Captured The First Image of Dark Matter" is a perfect example.

I would agree that when "social justice" activism encroaches on science education and research, bad science will be the result. To the extent that is happening in certain fields, it's highly unfortunate. But I think to say that all science and engineering research is completely tainted and unreliable because of this is an extreme mischaracterization. Social justice-tainted science (especially at certain universities) does exist, but it's a niche problem that's ultimately dealt with by the realities of lab experiments and worldwide peer review. I personally have never heard of any SJW issues in the fields of professional physics and cosmology, and I read a lot of recently-published books and articles on the subjects.

Anyhow, I'm checking out of this thread as I think it's devolved into something of a bewildering ideological dispute about the legitimacy of modern physics research and discoveries.

 

[SecondAttempt]

Well, this is how science works in a sense. Theories are developed to explain observations, then those theories are tested, and they are either rejected, refined, or supported by further experiments and observations.

I'm going to pick a nit here but only because it is an etremely important point that is broadly used to undermine scientific findings.

Scientists do not make up a theory and then test it. Scientists make up HYPOTHESES based on conjecture, observation, or some other unsupported mechanism. They then create experiments or perform observations to gather evidence to support or reject the hypothesis. Once there is sufficient evidence to support a hypothesized idea it becomes a theory. A theory is an accepted fact. A theory need not be true or false. It is merely an accepted way to explain something. Plenty of theories are known to be wrong on one scale.

For example, Newton's theory of gravity is extremely useful here on earth. But it is incomplete because it does not explain gravity at astronomical scales and does not account for relativistic effects.

I raise this point because many say "it's just a theory" to imply that some accepted idea is not a fact but rather someone's conjecture. I believe that is dangerous. As just one example, it is often said that the theory of evolution is just a theory and that it is equally reasonable to believe the earth is ~4000 years old and that cavemen once hunted dinosaurs. There is monumental evidence for evolution by natural selection over millions of years. Believing otherwise is based solely on blind belief in authority.

 

[Bamaman]

I live in the Rocket City, and our church is just full of NASA types.

I was talking to a friend's daughter who's a schoolteacher. Her Master's Degree is in Astro Physics with emphasis on keeping track of space matter.

Another in my Sunday School class is a missile engineer who spends a lot of time in El Paso while working at the White Sands Missile facility.

The Army Missile Command is headquartered out of here, and they manage the ICBM's out of Redstone Arsenal. They're bringing in 500 new engineers to work on the replacement for our aging nuclear missile fleet this year.

Where else will you see a job listing for an Inventory Clerk--to keep track of stars, planets, etc.? A PhD is required.

 

[SecondAttempt]

I live in the Rocket City, and our church is just full of NASA types.

I wasn't attacking religion but unfortunately it is some religious folks and politicians that tend to be the ones saying "evolution is only a theory." Honestly, I am not very religious but I was raised in a religion that taught that science helps us understand how God created the world and makes it work. I don't have a serious problem with people who have a different perspective but I also don't think we will ever see eye to eye.

By the "evolution is only a theory" rationale, the earth being a (roughly) sphere is only a theory. There are (morons) who believe the earth is flat and generally not for religious reasons. I doubt your rocket scientist friends believe the earth is flat. It would make their jobs very frustrating and difficult.

My only point is that people can believe whatever they want but scientists take a very methodical approach, not to be right but to be consistent and to take the data for what it is, something to be accepted even if inconvenient or challenging to current belief.

 

[Koolau]

I wasn't attacking religion but unfortunately it is some religious folks and politicians that tend to be the ones saying "evolution is only a theory." Honestly, I am not very religious but I was raised in a religion that taught that science helps us understand how God created the world and makes it work. I don't have a serious problem with people who have a different perspective but I also don't think we will ever see eye to eye.

By the "evolution is only a theory" rationale, the earth being a (roughly) sphere is only a theory. There are (morons) who believe the earth is flat and generally not for religious reasons. I doubt your rocket scientist friends believe the earth is flat. It would make their jobs very frustrating and difficult.

My only point is that people can believe whatever they want but scientists take a very methodical approach, not to be right but to be consistent and to take the data for what it is, something to be accepted even if inconvenient or challenging to current belief.

I was trained as a scientist. Theories evolve over time. Anyone remember Air Earth Fire Water as the 4 elements. I laughed as a young'un when I heard about it. I've since learned that it was actually a fairly good theory, based on the facts at the time. It explained observed phenomenon reasonably well in many cases and even predicted phenomena fairly well. Obviously, it was limited and was replaced as new facts were discovered. My point: Theories are theories - not facts. It's okay - even mandatory - to question theories and not accept them as fact - hopefully in an intelligent fashion. YMMV

 

[euro]

Dark Matter has been theorized by astronomers for a long time but undetected. This image in the following link was captured by a Canadian University which may confirm its existence.

https://blog.sci-nature.vip/2022/08/scientists-have-captured-first-ever.html

Very cool - thanks for sharing!