Thread: Is the Era of Dark Matter Over?

Since Newton and Leibniz both came up with calculus (I believe modern calculus is more Leibniz than Newton) is it not more accurate to describe them as 'discovering' calculus rather than 'inventing' it?

Originally Posted by Chogy

Science is supposed to be self-correcting, and it usually is. When someone comes up with a new theory (Einstein) and the traditional theories (Newton) fail in certain scenarios, then the Einsteinian view of the Universe is readily adopted... so long as the data reinforces the new theory. And Einstein added to Newton, didn't replace it.

Ok are you saying: A. Newton wasn't 'wrong' but Einsteins formulation alowed greater accuracy or B. Agreeing with Eddingtons remark "Einstein right, Newton wrong"'? If you agree with Eddington then by your own definition the existence of 'darks' makes Einstein is 'wrong'. Even if you take the first you are forced to admit that Einstein is 'innacurate' and this seems to be the generaly accepted stance today.

We have a theory that we know is not 100% right but continue to use it because we can't find a better 'measuring tape'. As we find different instances of where the ducks appear NOT to quack, and sometimes don't even walk like ducks, (the theory appears not to work) we formulate hypothesis about the existence of 'dark X,Y and Z' that distort what we are seeing. In effect modern science argues that 'ducks are ALWAYS ducks. However they do NOT always appear to walk and quack like ducks because of the unknown properties of unicorns/darks (who we can't find)'.

My basic problem with this is the methodology: At what point can one say "Perhaps we are just 'barking up the wrong tree'?". We can go on forever inventing more unicorns/darks/'known unknowns' to keep our origional theory eternaly consistent; ducks are always going to be ducks - even when they appear to be sharks. If indeed a duck appears to be a shark we should see this as a proof that there's a unicorn nearby!

Modern science and it's theories you say need 'data' to get a 'proof'. In what might be called 'classical physics' - or perhaps better called 'idealised science' - this is supposed to be the case. In 'dark energy' for example by the very definition no data is forthcoming yet this is 'adopted'; the data suggests only that the duck isn't quacking; it's meowing. The fact that the duck appears to be meowing leads us to believe that there is a 'dark energy' (or unicorn in my terms). Logical?

The problem is not with the 'data' (except that of course the data only provides a probability and never a proof) but in the interpretation of the data. Where something 'inconvenient' appears to be happening (ducks appearing not to quack etc) we hypothesise a cause for this (dark X or unicorns) rather than saying "perhaps it's NOT a duck after all!". With a methodology of this nature we can never have a 'proof' in the classical sense. It is as if they had turned 'classical science' on it's head; when the theory appears not apply this does NOT negate the theory but proves the existence of something we didn't know about before.

There is much else I could say on this matter but I am not sure it's relevant to this forums agenda.

Originally Posted by snapper

The problem is not with the 'data' (except that of course the data only provides a probability and never a proof) but in the interpretation of the data. Where something 'inconvenient' appears to be happening (ducks appearing not to quack etc) we hypothesise a cause for this (dark X or unicorns) rather than saying "perhaps it's NOT a duck after all!". With a methodology of this nature we can never have a 'proof' in the classical sense. It is as if they had turned 'classical science' on it's head; when the theory appears not apply this does NOT negate the theory but proves the existence of something we didn't know about before.

Not that I am anywhere near Stephen Hawkings brilliance but when he had to invent imaginary time in order for his equations to work ... and then go on to state that imaginary time might as well be real because it works in his equations to predict things, I just rolled my eyes. Here we have an absolute admission that that he had to invent something out of the blue and then to state that it's real ...

What is the difference between imaginary time and the angels make it so?

A fine example Sir. Of course on top of his 'imaginary/may as well real' concept he (and others) then proceed to add other hypothosises and 'may as well be reals' to the limit of abstraction. It becomes nothing but conjecture with no firm footing. To his credit Prof Hawking himself acknowledges this problem.

"What is the difference between imaginary time and the angels make it so?" In terms of the logic and methodology there is NO difference naturaly. What is the difference between the ducks appearing to be ducks and sharks? See, they only appear that way because of the unicorns! So lets look for the unicorns!

As a logician/philosopher by training there seems to be a degree of contradiction going on here or an implied inference that doesn't sit well. Lets say D is duck and Q is quack;

D > Q (where > means 'implies').So if assert Q I can conclude (.:.) D. All together we say this notionaly:

D>Q
Q
.:. D

Of course the opposite is ALSO true: Where ~ means negative/not

D>Q
~Q
.:. ~D

Not so in scienctific hypothisese: They are in fact arguing something like this (where U is unicorn and + means 'and').

D>Q
~Q
.:. D + U

This is NOT a valid logical step (if D>Q then that's it; U is not alowed so to speak) yet one which is happily made by modern scientific theorists to the extent that:

D > A-Z
~ A,C,F,Q
.:. D + U,Z,G,Y

In short we 'invent' new darks/unicorns/dragons/'angel time' in order to keep our main theory consistent. I should perhaps warn fellow wabbits before they reply that this is a field I know particularly well.

Since Newton and Leibniz both came up with calculus (I believe modern calculus is more Leibniz than Newton) is it not more accurate to describe them as 'discovering' calculus rather than 'inventing' it?

Discover = bring to light something that pre-exists. You discover a new moon. Invent = create from disparate or smaller components something new. I'd say invent is more appropriate that discover w/regards to early calculus, but it's semantics and not important.

Ok are you saying: A. Newton wasn't 'wrong' but Einsteins formulation alowed greater accuracy or B. Agreeing with Eddingtons remark "Einstein right, Newton wrong"'? If you agree with Eddington then by your own definition the existence of 'darks' makes Einstein is 'wrong'. Even if you take the first you are forced to admit that Einstein is 'innacurate' and this seems to be the generaly accepted stance today.

I'm not a physicist, just a fan of science in general. Newton and Einstein are both accurate within their natural world niche. They complement each other. Neither replaces the other.

My basic problem with this is the methodology: At what point can one say "Perhaps we are just 'barking up the wrong tree'?". We can go on forever inventing more unicorns/darks/'known unknowns' to keep our origional theory eternaly consistent; ducks are always going to be ducks - even when they appear to be sharks. If indeed a duck appears to be a shark we should see this as a proof that there's a unicorn nearby!

Are you saying theories and formulae should be withheld until we know for 100% certainty, forever and ever amen, that said theories are perfect in every way and will withstand the scrutiny of 10,000 generations? Or, do we test... and when we find unusual, even bizarre situations where a theory breaks down, but holds 99.5% of the time, should we jettison that theory and start from scratch?

Orbital mechanics... the math describing the movements of celestial bodies is perfect when viewed from the scale of the solar system. It allows us to determine the position, velocity, period of pretty much everything we can see inside the orbit of Pluto. Because this math doesn't work when viewing a gigantic spiral galaxy a billion light years away, does this mean the math is wrong?

My question is twofold: Is it logical? and where does one draw the line?

I suspect your 99.5% is somewhat hopeful considering that 2/3rds of the mass of the universe is presumed to be derived from 'dark unicorns'.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Not that I am anywhere near Stephen Hawkings brilliance but when he had to invent imaginary time in order for his equations to work ... and then go on to state that imaginary time might as well be real because it works in his equations to predict things, I just rolled my eyes. Here we have an absolute admission that that he had to invent something out of the blue and then to state that it's real ...

What is the difference between imaginary time and the angels make it so?

I agree completely.

Imagination is real

"Its one thing to treat your facts with imagination, and quite another to imagine your facts"
I have this quote framed in my library.

Because this math doesn't work when viewing a gigantic spiral galaxy a billion light years away, does this mean the math is wrong?

Not exactly; to me - it means we have too little information about these distant galaxies - if what we currently believe about light is true - those galaxies we see are ancient beyond the concept we know on Earth - they are older than the Earth it self as we see them today - there are many factors at play that we don't know anything about. Trying to define them is, perhaps, more than we are ready to do with what we know today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try - in fact its good to try. It means to me that we shouldn't be too sure of our definitions.

I think USSW- hits the problem on the head when he says "we shouldn't be too sure of our definitions". By defining 'Classical science' as requiring 'proof' scientists actualy limited themselves when it comes the probabilities involved in particle physics; in many ways the 'classical proof' simply is NOT possible. Perhaps this is not the fault of the scientists - the requirements are no longer relevant?

Is Dark Energy Really "Repulsive Gravity"?

Antimatter could be behind mysterious force, new theory says.

Ker Than
for National Geographic News
Published February 15, 2012

A powerful repulsion between normal matter and hidden pockets of antimatter could be an alternate explanation for the mysterious force known as dark energy, according to a controversial new theory.

In 1998 scientists discovered that the universe is not only expanding but that its expansion is accelerating.

This totally unexpected behavior has been called the "most profound problem" in physics, because our current understanding of gravity says that attractions between mass in the universe should be causing the expansion to slow down.

The leading theory to explain the accelerating expansion is the existence of a hypothetical repulsive force called dark energy. (Related: "New Galaxy Maps to Help Find Dark Energy Proof?")

But in the new study, Massimo Villata, an astrophysicist at the Observatory of Turin in Italy, suggests the effects attributed to dark energy are actually due to a kind of "antigravity" created when normal matter and antimatter repel one another.

"Usually this repulsion is ascribed to a mysterious dark energy that would uniformly permeate the cosmos, but nobody knows what it is nor why it behaves this way," Villata said in an email.

"We are replacing an unknown force caused by an unknown element with the repulsive gravity of the well-known antimatter."

(Related: "Dark Matter Is an Illusion, New Antigravity Theory Says.")

Antimatter Hiding in "Holes" in the Universe?

According to Villata, the keys to accelerated expansion lie in large-scale voids that are seen scattered throughout the cosmos.

These holes in our map of the universe—which can each be millions of light-years wide—are inexplicably empty of galaxies and galaxy clusters. The nearest hole to us is called the Local Void, bordering the Virgo supercluster of galaxies.

Villata thinks these voids harbor vast quantities of antimatter, which could even be organized into antimatter galaxies, complete with antimatter stars and planets.

(Related: "Antimatter Found Orbiting Earth—A First.")

All this antimatter doesn't emit radiation that can be detected by current sensors, making it effectively invisible, Villata said.

"There can be various reasons why antimatter in voids should be invisible, but we do not know which of them is the right one," Villata said. "Moreover, antimatter in laboratories could have different behavior, since it is 'immersed' in a world of matter."

(See "Antimatter Atoms Trapped for First Time—'A Big Deal.'")

While we can't see antimatter superstructures, we can observe their effects on our visible universe, Villata argues, because antimatter must repel the normal matter in galaxies, pushing them farther from one another.

Villata says his theory, which will appear in an upcoming issue of the journal Astrophysics and Space Science, has the potential to solve other cosmic mysteries, such as the universe's "missing antimatter" problem.

According to standard physics, matter and antimatter particles should have been created in equal amounts during the big bang. Yet the visible universe appears to be dominated by structures made up of normal matter.

To determine how much antimatter might be contained in the Local Void, Villata calculated how much would be needed to create a repulsive force strong enough to explain the so-called Local Sheet. This collection of normal matter, which includes our Milky Way and other nearby galaxies, is all moving at the same speed.

"If each void contains a mass of antimatter similar to that calculated for our Local Void ... then our universe would host an amount of antimatter equivalent to that of matter, and [there] would finally be a matter-antimatter symmetric universe," Villata said.

But Do Matter and Antimatter Repel?

While Villata's theory doesn't require mysterious forces created from nothing, it does rely on the untested assumption that matter and antimatter are mutually repulsive.

There is as yet "no [experimental] evidence that antimatter repels matter," said physicist Frank Close of the University of Oxford in the U.K., although, he added, plans are underway at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) in Switzerland to test the idea.

In fact, Dragan Hajdukovic, a physicist at CERN, recently proposed a separate antigravity theory that also relies on repulsion between matter and antimatter to explain dark energy and dark matter.

Hajdukovic called Villata's theory "an interesting idea," be he added that he disagrees with the hypothesis of a matter-antimatter symmetric universe.

"The major problem is why [such] big quantities of antimatter in the voids are not observed," Hajdukovic said.

In Hajdukovic's theory, antimatter particles spontaneously pop in and out of existence in the quantum vacuum, which is the name physicists give to seemingly empty space.

"I use the reality of the quantum vacuum. For a physicist, it is more natural and plausible," Hajdukovic said.

"In order to explain the invisibility of antimatter, proponents of a matter-antimatter symmetric universe would be forced to invoke an additional hypothesis"—such as the emission by antimatter of so-called advanced photons, which travel backward in time and so wouldn't be detectable to current instruments.

(Related: "Time Travel Impossible, Mini 'Big Bang' Hints.")

"It is not a good sign for a theory if one hypothesis immediately demands introduction of other hypotheses."

But study author Villata argues that the assumptions in his theory—including matter-antimatter repulsion and advanced photons—are predicted by well-established theories in physics.

In that sense, he said, there is "no introduction of other hypotheses."

Way over my head, but antimatter, if it has these properties, would more correctly explain "dark matter" rather than a repulsive dark energy.

I think the truth, if we ever discover it, will be far stranger than these theories. Something like "Invisible quantum matter is phase-shifting into our universe on a continual basis from parallel universes" or something similar. Or... the laws of physics are simply different depending upon where you are in the known universe.

I think that whenever someone will be able to explain all this, the audience will be all like

how on earth we never thought of that!?

Originally Posted by Chogy

Way over my head, but antimatter, if it has these properties, would more correctly explain "dark matter" rather than a repulsive dark energy.

How ?

Dark matter is the supposedly hidden mass that keeps galaxies in order, they all revolve around some huge dark matter. To do that there has to be an attractive property rather than a repulsive one.

Whereas the basis for repulsive behaviour ie accelerating galaxies is attributed to a repulsive gravity originating from anti-matter rather than dark energy.

dark matter attracts other matter, anti-matter repels it, presumably anti-matter attracts its equivalent via gravity like matter does.

anti-matter is better known, relatively speaking, whereas dark matter is unknown. Conceivably, we could make anti-matter, it would take an incredible amount of energy and last for a minuscule amount of time. We have no clue what consitutes dark matter let alone make any.

The repelling behaviour of dark energy is being replaced here by anti-gravity caused by anti-matter.

Thing that confuses me with this new theory is both matter & anti-matter are supposed to anhilate each other if they ever came into contact, that implies a ferociously attractive force between the two.

so the premise of anti-matter repelling matter here appears mysterious.

Originally Posted by Chogy

Way over my head, but antimatter, if it has these properties, would more correctly explain "dark matter" rather than a repulsive dark energy.

I think the truth, if we ever discover it, will be far stranger than these theories. Something like "Invisible quantum matter is phase-shifting into our universe on a continual basis from parallel universes" or something similar. Or... the laws of physics are simply different depending upon where you are in the known universe.

The problem with having anti matter as dark matter is that anti matter doesn't exist long enough to contribute to the mass of universe. Even if it did it's effect on the universes mass as whole would be either to reduce the mass (if the anti matters mass is counted before hand) or neutral, if the mass of anti matter is added after we 'weigh' the Universe.

"Something like "Invisible quantum matter is phase-shifting into our universe on a continual basis from parallel universes" or something similar."

It does but only for very brief periods of time. This is called 'quantum fluctuation'.

interesting stuff
I hadn't thought about antimatter repelling - it ahnilates matter - but positrons and protons should repell
like charges repel - antimatter/matter repulsion would occur if the particles had like charges

If there were anti gravitons - that would also provide a reason for "missing mass"