Astronomers are surprised to learn that many observations show a complete absence of dark matter or dark matter-deficient structures. This leads one to question its existence.
This is evidence for dark matter, not against it.
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
7 points (100.0% liked)
Space
8746 readers
103 users here now
Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
Picture of the Day
The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula
Related Communities
🔭 Science
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
🚀 Engineering
🌌 Art and Photography
Other Cool Links
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Wow, I'm actually really glad there's an xkcd for this because I do get so tired of videos and articles click-baiting "Dark Matter is nonsense, finally a real alternative" and it's always always always some variant on "maybe gravity is dynamic over distance/time/aether" or "maybe energy gets tired" or some other silly stuff that doesn't fit all the data.
At least invent some whackier new ideas! What happened to universe-long unbounded superstrings? Ultrafast orbiting cosmic mesons create relativity drag on galaxies? Maybe reality is shaped like a bowl of gravity-fruitloops floating in dark energy milk? Give me something fun to work with here, no wonder sci-fi sucks so much now!
Always a relevant xkcd
If you knew it was bullshit, why did you post it? Shame on you
Well I didn't, I'm not an expert in this topic. The article was written by an adjunct professor at uOttawa, so I judged it higher than the other pop science articles I come across.
I considered deleting the post, but since I still don't know if the content is completely false (disinformation) or just academic discussion, and since the comment section has good discussion, I left it up.
I can edit the title if that helps, maybe
"We need to consider alternatives to dark matter that better explain cosmological observations" (see comments for discussion)
I didn't know about this particular xkcd till now, and it's funny because of how relevant it is to this exact situation
It does raise a pretty big problem though.
How did it end up with no dark matter? We don't have a good answer usually.
The problem being that none of the alternative models have good explanations, either.
It's not like astronomers like dark matter. Most kind of hate it. But every time people try to sell alternate models, they spend their time trying to find examples that raise corner cases for dark matter while ignoring the fact that their favourite models also don't address the issue.
Which, you know, is acting in bad faith.
Dark matter/energy is just a place holder as we have no idea what it is. How do we know that it isn't a second, or multiple, "universe/s" taking up the same space and same time but out of sync so we can neither see nor interact with anything from there but their gravity affects us and ours them?
Because that sounded like a chat gpt answer.
In case you actually want an answer, is what observable effects would that have, and can we verify them?
If the answer is no, then it’s not a better theory than shrugging your shoulders and saying dark matter.
Well, I have never been accused of being an llm, also never used any of them.
Scientists are trying to figure out what is causing these effects and with no readily available answer they give it a place holder name, it could be a single particle type in larger amounts that do not get affected by the light we see. I think there is a lot they are getting wrong with the age and consistency of the universe over time using the current methods, tho I do accept it as the best we can come up with due to our limited knowledge and data gathering abilities. Every time a new bigger better equipped telescope comes out we learn that we had something wrong and now we can "see" it. With our tenacity we will discover what it all is, or we will get wiped out, one day.
The scientists have not shrugged their shoulders, they are trying to figure it out, atoms were a hypothesis, molecules were a hypothesis, viruses and bacteria were also a hypothesis until we saw them with technology. This hypothesis of mine has been rattling around in my head for years along with the possibility that inside black holes are entire universes like ours. But I am no scientist so even using hypothesis is a strong word. I do watch certain astrophysicists to learn what I can without delving into the maths.
I would guess that my multiple overlapping universes that cannot see or physically interact with each other would be a source of gravity we cannot find the source of that makes our universe the way it is with the spiderweb of matter that was mapped.
What is your hypothesis?
That’s still a lot of words to say nothing of actual value. Are you sure you’re not a. LLM?
For the record, it doesn’t matter if my ideas are better, it’s yours has to be better than the currently available models.
So again, with out any kind of testable theory, how can yours be better?
There is nothing stopping you from publishing a paper on this. But you can’t just postulate something to sound smart.
That’s still a lot of words to say nothing of actual value. Are you sure you’re not a. LLM?
Dude, what part of NOT A SCIENTIST don't you grasp? lol and stop with the LLM shit, it is not conducive to constructive discussions.
For the record, it doesn’t matter if my ideas are better, it’s yours has to be better than the currently available models.
Why exactly do I have to scientifically back up my spit balling? That is for the PhD types with big wrinkly brains and access to technology I can't access.
So again, with out any kind of testable theory, how can yours be better?
Time will tell if I am correct, close, or not even in the same universe
There is nothing stopping you from publishing a paper on this. But you can’t just postulate something to sound smart.
Well, the fact I am not a scientist would be a huge factor in my not publishing a paper. As for trying to sound smart? lol I am smart enough to know my limits, sometimes a great idea pops into my head and other times it is complete hogwash.
BTW did I stumble into a community that is for science experts only?
Two equally plausible explanations:
- aliens
- god(s)