T Nation

Oops! Maybe No Dark Energy/Matter After All

dang it! I really liked the idea of dark matter and dark energy . .

Ahh. Another asumption dissolves

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking!

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking![/quote]

Thats really what I was getting at. From college science professors to documentaries, this was a cemented mystery if you will. But its actually up in the air. Its very interesting subject.

I created a similar thread quite a while ago about this subject and thought it might help out your thread irish http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/dark_matter_and_energy_dont_exist

Why would you be pleased with the idea of dark energy/dark matter? I mean in all honesty way down the line we’d just have a baryonic/non-baryonic war. Because let’s face it- once you’re at peace with everything in the universe, you’d probably start fucking with things that you don’t even acknowledge as ‘things’.

On the other hand, this work is incredibly preliminary, and even my drunk ass is capable of not discounting a hypothesis on one brand of analysis.

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking![/quote]

Wow is that really all the two of you took from the article?

This is pretty interesting IMO. I wonder why he says “odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive…” if he has eliminated the evidence of dark matter/energy. I’m assuming the cosmic background radiation isn’t the only evidence for it. Perhaps we will simply find out that it exists, just not in the quantities previously thought.

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking![/quote]

Wow is that really all the two of you took from the article?

This is pretty interesting IMO. I wonder why he says “odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive…” if he has eliminated the evidence of dark matter/energy. I’m assuming the cosmic background radiation isn’t the only evidence for it. Perhaps we will simply find out that it exists, just not in the quantities previously thought. [/quote]
He says that because he has NOT eliminated evidence of dark matter/energy. He is even quoted as saying the results have yet to be proven and repeated. (3rd and 6th paragraphs from the end respectively).
Yea, they found evidence of data errors. That does not mean this one article completely proves or disproves anything.

This always seems to happen.
Scenario-
OH MY GOD we found this new awesome super controversial thing
anywhere from 1 day to 100 years later - Whoops my bad, we were totally wrong.

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]NAUn wrote:

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking![/quote]

Wow is that really all the two of you took from the article?

This is pretty interesting IMO. I wonder why he says “odds are that the standard model with its enigmatic dark energy and dark matter will survive…” if he has eliminated the evidence of dark matter/energy. I’m assuming the cosmic background radiation isn’t the only evidence for it. Perhaps we will simply find out that it exists, just not in the quantities previously thought. [/quote]
He says that because he has NOT eliminated evidence of dark matter/energy. He is even quoted as saying the results have yet to be proven and repeated. (3rd and 6th paragraphs from the end respectively).
Yea, they found evidence of data errors. That does not mean this one article completely proves or disproves anything.[/quote]

Yes that was a dumb comment on my part. I meant to say if he has cast legitimate doubt on the existence of these things, not eliminated the evidence of them. The 6th paragraph from the end says CMB might not be as good an indicator of their existence as once thought, but why? Is it because the results of this study suggest that to be the case, or is there a theoretical reason? The 3rd to last paragraph says it needs to be repeated for the Southern hemisphere, which makes it sound like this was done for the Northern hemisphere. If the problem is in the smoothing factor of the telescopes, then I would think they should have a good idea of whether other telescopes were giving similarly skewed results just by looking at the size of the ripples in the data from those telescopes. Obviously, that’s not conclusive in and of itself, but they should already have a decent idea of whether this was isolated to the WMAP or not just by looking at the data from other telescopes.

So of course we’ll just have to wait and see, but it’s still pretty significant because CMB is almost always given as evidence of dark matter/energy.

Edit: Perhaps “interesting” would be a more suitable term than “significant.”

I thought dark matter just existed to explain the stuff physicists could not explain. Should there be surprise when the stuff that physicists could not explain might be something different than the assumptions and characteristic assigned to the stuff that they could not explain in the first place? What I got from this is there is reason to continue doing research.

It is funny, those outside of science often think science has all the answers, everything is named and explained. While those in science see more questions than answers - except, of course, when applying for funding or publishing articles.

Well they have never actually proved the idea of dark energy. It’s only a theory. But this one measurement does not disprove it. The quantum world is weird.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
<<< It is funny, those outside of science often think science has all the answers, >>>[/quote]
I am quite decidedly not one of those people, but I love this kinda stuff. Seriously. I can’t enough of astronomy and theoretical physics. The dark matter/energy theory rocks. The idea of measurable gravity with no known source is way too cool for words to put arather unscientific light (pun?) on it.

[quote]Tex Ag wrote:
I thought dark matter just existed to explain the stuff physicists could not explain. Should there be surprise when the stuff that physicists could not explain might be something different than the assumptions and characteristic assigned to the stuff that they could not explain in the first place? What I got from this is there is reason to continue doing research.

It is funny, those outside of science often think science has all the answers, everything is named and explained. While those in science see more questions than answers - except, of course, when applying for funding or publishing articles.[/quote]

No, this is actually an observable phenomenon. In the form of what they call ‘Null Theory’ which basically states that within a space, where no matter is present, something does in fact remain or is present, in the absence of physical matter. There super mega tiny little particles of varying polarity that “pop in and out” of existence. The dark energy is the result of the actions of these particles…
It is observable that if you devoid a given space of all matter, this is what’s left. It is therefore assumed that the same phenomenon exists where ever there is nothing, or more accurately, a lack of matter.

The problem with this experiment is it’s just one measure. The one thing that everyone is certain about quantum mechanics is that nobody really understands it. So it’s possible that measurement shows the “dark energy” is not prevalent, and yet it still be prevalent.

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I created a similar thread quite a while ago about this subject and thought it might help out your thread irish http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/dark_matter_and_energy_dont_exist
[/quote]

Would it cause you any problems if it did exist? The theories have validity and there is an empirical observable component. Now it may just be a misunderstand of what is going on, but then again, it may in fact be understood and real.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
I created a similar thread quite a while ago about this subject and thought it might help out your thread irish http://tnation.tmuscle.com/free_online_forum/music_movies_girls_life/dark_matter_and_energy_dont_exist
[/quote]

Would it cause you any problems if it did exist? The theories have validity and there is an empirical observable component. Now it may just be a misunderstand of what is going on, but then again, it may in fact be understood and real.[/quote]
To your first question certainly not.
I hold that dark matter (I am not very knowledgeable about dark energy) doesn’t exist due to it having properties that will not allow us to detect it(I am somewhat okay with the properties). And invoking its existence to explain away the gravitational rotation or spinning of galaxies especially when what one sees in the gravitational rotation of galaxies indicates that there should be ten times the mass of what we know exist in the galaxy(dust, stars, black holes) and that 90% of the missing mass comes from the dark matter. Certainly something strange is happening in the universe and our premises about gravity may be wrong(which is the view I hold), but I am certainly open to the existence of dark matter.

[quote]Sharp4850 wrote:

[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Ahh. Another asumption dissolves[/quote]
Nothing has dissolved yet. Read the last paragraph.
All this really says is that something science was not previously conclusive of is still inconclusive. Groundbreaking![/quote]

This.

[quote]pat wrote:
It’s only a theory.[/quote]
Please don’t throw this expression around so lightly.

but its so light and easy to toss around . . . .

oh BTW!!! a lot of you need to actually read the title of the thread . . .MAYBE no dark energy/matter

I did read the article and did understand he wasn’t saying conclusively that it does not exist, but that it was looking unlikely . . . sheesh . . . get a grip people . . .