Dark Matter Image

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondAttempt 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sojourner 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bamaman 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondAttempt 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 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/...irst-ever.html

Very cool - thanks for sharing!

[Walt34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aja8888 Who is building warp-drive ships these days? Musk? GM? We need to get a handle on this.

Nah, that's old and not nearly fast enough.

What we need is the spindizzy.

[SecondAttempt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau 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

Well, that is a little disingenuous. As I am sure you are aware, ancient Greek science was based on philosophy not experimentation so the comparisons with modern science are false. The ancient Greek approach was for great thinkers to decide how things "should" be and decide that it the way it was. Once they agreed there was no need for experiments. It was essentially "appeal to authority" rather than the scientific method.

Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

And it goes on and on...

I learned that a theory is an accepted fact but I agree with you that a theory is better described as an accepted explanation rather than a fact. We have, for example, both a wave theory of light propagation and a particle theory of light propagation. They are essentially inconsistent yet both are necessary to make your TV, your fiber optic connections, and much more of modern life possible.

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondAttempt Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill

Interesting tidbit from 1897, but according to wiki link you posted it was never passed into law: "The bill, written by a physician who was an amateur mathematician, never became law due to the intervention of Professor C. A. Waldo of Purdue University, who happened to be present in the legislature on the day it went up for a vote."

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondAttempt Well, that is a little disingenuous. As I am sure you are aware, ancient Greek science was based on philosophy not experimentation so the comparisons with modern science are false. The ancient Greek approach was for great thinkers to decide how things "should" be and decide that it the way it was. Once they agreed there was no need for experiments. It was essentially "appeal to authority" rather than the scientific method. Unfortunately this way of thinking persists in some state legislatures such as when the Indiana legislature passed a law defining pi as exactly 3.2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill And it goes on and on... I learned that a theory is an accepted fact but I agree with you that a theory is better described as an accepted explanation rather than a fact. We have, for example, both a wave theory of light propagation and a particle theory of light propagation. They are essentially inconsistent yet both are necessary to make your TV, your fiber optic connections, and much more of modern life possible.

I don't appreciate the "charge" of being disingenuous. I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm sincere and serious about it. Labels are rarely helpful - especially when words spoken (especially with body language) are often more acceptable than writen words - which are often hindered by the brevity required by time and space. Also grace is a good concept when reading responses here. I fail at times, but I attempt to assume the best motives - at least until proven otherwise. YMMV

All that being said...

Where we disagree, I'm willing to disagree and let it go at that.

I do wonder how much philosophy was affected by "science" over the years. I suspect it was significantly but can't point to a source.

The Alchemists whose goal was to turn lead into gold came up with some rudimentary science which eventually aided those with a more scientific bent.

One bit of knowledge - even if incomplete - builds on itself as new information is learned. We're still doing that (I recall when the accepted theory of the extinction of the dinosaurs was (wait for it) climate change. I think the meteor theory was postulated in the late '40s but only "accepted" (IIRC) in the late 80s.)

I thought that Indiana law was a real hoot Just think - We're still doing that kind of cwap today! I can say no more.

[RobLJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau 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

In my experience it is the little proviso to question "hopefully in an intelligent fashion" that is rare. I grew up in an Evangelical church where "dinosaurs" and "evolution" are just theories was very common; informed discussion didn't go very far, but oh, how they loved, to cite the "hypothesis" or "theory" to just pull stuff out of their hindquarters and dismiss science. Most believed the earth revolved around the sun, however, so there had been some progress.

[SecondAttempt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau I don't appreciate the "charge" of being disingenuous. I might be wrong, but if I am, I'm sincere and serious about it. Labels are rarely helpful - especially when words spoken (especially with body language) are often more acceptable than writen words - which are often hindered by the brevity required by time and space. Also grace is a good concept when reading responses here. I fail at times, but I attempt to assume the best motives - at least until proven otherwise. YMMV

Well, I apologize. I will partly blame the medium (written words and we don't know each other etc.) but I understand why you took it the way you did. I could have chosen my words better.

I didn't even think you were wrong. I just meant that using the methodology of the ancient Greeks to debate semantics of the modern scientific method seemed to be quite a stretch to me.

Yes, theories get refined, tested, and occasionally thrown out entirely. But only when there is a great deal of counterevidence. Not on a whim or a belief that world should not be that way.

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobLJ In my experience it is the little proviso to question "hopefully in an intelligent fashion" that is rare. I grew up in an Evangelical church where "dinosaurs" and "evolution" are just theories was very common; informed discussion didn't go very far, but oh, how they loved, to cite the "hypothesis" or "theory" to just pull stuff out of their hindquarters and dismiss science. Most believed the earth revolved around the sun, however, so there had been some progress.

Wait. What?! You mean the sun DOESN'T revolve around the Earth?

But seriously, not all religious people are science deniers. Keep in mind that the guy who first postulated the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.

Arthur Eddington, a Quaker, showed bending of star light by the mass of the sun - helping to confirm Einstein's theory of relativity.

[SecondAttempt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koolau But seriously, not all religious people are science deniers. Keep in mind that the guy who first postulated the Big Bang Theory was a Catholic priest.

The Vatican has operated an observatory since 1582. It was established to fix the calendar which had slipped because of the lack of leap years.

On their website they have a "Faith and Science Center" with lots of great articles and videos. Of course this naturally takes the Catholic perspective but the material is informative.

Here is a video from there on dark energy and dark matter:

https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/r...r-dark-energy/

[Koolau]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondAttempt The Vatican has operated an observatory since 1582. It was established to fix the calendar which had slipped because of the lack of leap years. On their website they have a "Faith and Science Center" with lots of great articles and videos. Of course this naturally takes the Catholic perspective but the material is informative. Here is a video from there on dark energy and dark matter: https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/r...r-dark-energy/

That's pretty cool. I've heard the proposed explanations before, but a review is warranted.