Dark matter

[Pliny]

A theory is a theory and it is as good as it explains things. The theory of everything would explain...well...everything.

I recently watched a show on physics regarding dark matter and, as it is mathematically predicted by the theory of relativity, physicists are trying to detect it. One of the physicists said it may not be measurable by material yardsticks since it isn't matter but they were hopeful a few particles would show up. Several millions of dollars are being spent to detect such particles so it is a serious subject.

We have creationist theory that starts from the premise of the existence of God. Of course, in light of scientific advancement, the theory of relativity and our increased understanding of the universe, we cannot accept the old fashioned idea of heaven and hell and the man in the sky.

Since dark matter is not a material thing is it perhaps science's mathematical proof of god?

Of course, creationist theory served us well for several millenia, we overcame many fears because of it.

It doesn't explain the universe to us in it's entirety and perhaps that is the legitimate complaint of science. But science has yet to explain the universe to us as well. Perhaps all that is necessary is a redefinition of terms in order to diminish the divide between scientific and creationist theory? Basically, replacing old concepts of the same thing with new concepts. The concept of god gives the existence of the universe purpose and reason. The scientific explanation of a chance happening out of chaos resulting in the big bang explains nothing as far as reason and purpose - perhaps dark matter will give it some purpose?

Edited August 21, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

Since dark matter is not a material thing is it perhaps science's mathematical proof of god?

Dark matter is still matter, which is stuff a.k.a. 'material'.

[kimmy]

A theory is a theory and it is as good as it explains things. The theory of everything would explain...well...everything.

I recently watched a show on physics regarding dark matter and, as it is mathematically predicted by the theory of relativity, physicists are trying to detect it. One of the physicists said it may not be measurable by material yardsticks since it isn't matter but they were hopeful a few particles would show up. Several millions of dollars are being spent to detect such particles so it is a serious subject.

One type of dark matter has already been shown to exist-- neutrinos.

We have creationist theory that starts from the premise of the existence of God. Of course, in light of scientific advancement, the theory of relativity and our increased understanding of the universe, we cannot accept the old fashioned idea of heaven and hell and the man in the sky.

There's nothing in science that precludes the existence of heaven, hell, or "the man in the sky".

Since dark matter is not a material thing is it perhaps science's mathematical proof of god?

Of course, creationist theory served us well for several millenia, we overcame many fears because of it.

It doesn't explain the universe to us in it's entirety and perhaps that is the legitimate complaint of science. But science has yet to explain the universe to us as well. Perhaps all that is necessary is a redefinition of terms in order to diminish the divide between scientific and creationist theory?

Not on the terms insisted on by Biblical literalists...

Basically, replacing old concepts of the same thing with new concepts. The concept of god gives the existence of the universe purpose and reason. The scientific explanation of a chance happening out of chaos resulting in the big bang explains nothing as far as reason and purpose - perhaps dark matter will give it some purpose?

This is just "God in the gaps" again. "Science hasn't answered this question yet! God must have done it!" And when science does answer the question, people will find something else that science hasn't explained yet and that's their new proof of God.

-k

[DogOnPorch]

Sir Bedevere: ...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped.

King Arthur: This new learning amazes me, Sir Bedevere. Explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes.

[Pliny]

One type of dark matter has already been shown to exist-- neutrinos.

That is not dark matter it is a measurable particle. According to the show no "dark matter has been detected but there is a promise it can be. As I said, they don't know if they can detect something that is only mathematically predicted to exist and as it is outside the parameters of what is known as matter

aren't sure it can be measured by any material method. They are trying.

There's nothing in science that precludes the existence of heaven, hell, or "the man in the sky".

I will agree with you there but there are those that won't.

It is in my view just a means to represent a concept, I might argue specifics. As do the various established religions. I don't believe any are the exact truth, however settled they seem, and science is wandering off trying to explain the anomalies of their developed theory.

Not on the terms insisted on by Biblical literalists...

Or skeptics.

This is just "God in the gaps" again. "Science hasn't answered this question yet! God must have done it!" And when science does answer the question, people will find something else that science hasn't explained yet and that's their new proof of God.

Right.

Edited August 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Oleg Bach]

Some times I fell like dark matter.

[Oleg Bach]

God could be dark matter - after all he did say - let there be light...no point in having light unless you are extremely dark. Maybe all we are is a cheap beam jetting out of God's flash light - I hope he needs to see for a while longer.

[Pliny]

It's all in the defintions, Oleg.

If we start out with the idea of a god, maybe there are many gods. But what is that. We thought of god or gods as having corporeal similarity to us. that had powers over their realms. Greek gods, Roman gods were given human form as we do not understand anyhting else that controls his environment. Some gods, did indeed have animal characteristics assigend to them but they were genrally lesser entities. Zeus and Odin were the paternalistic gods of yore that seemed to echo the structure of society. Beuaty elevated Aphrodite to god status.

But then we abandoned polytheisim for monotheism. Although, Hinduism and some other eastern religions are still polytheistic. The abandonment of polytheism made it impossible for any man to be elevated to the status of god or any god to be relegated to the status of man. Yet what of the devil? An entity opposite of god. The inevitability of his invention is in the necessity to have a comparison.

Invent good and evil must come into existence or all would be good.

Scientifically, the definitions must be proved. But if one has the idea that heaven and hell await what are the definitions. It could be that dark matter is god but both science and religion would have to redefine them as such to be at all compatible.

And what of the soul? What is it's definition. What are it's capailities and potentials and wha tis it's form? It is not proven to be anything more than an idea at this time. But what is an idea?

Space and time must have proper definitions as well. Saying that space is what matter exists in does not define it. And saying that time exacts as a fabric in a psace time contiunuum doe snot define it either. We are missing what the essences of these thihgs are.

Any person should be able to figure out that time travel is not possible. It would mean that the future and the past are in existence along with the present. And if that is true, and many think of it that way, I beleive, then the future and the past are not changeable and visiting them would bring about an impossible change. It would also mean that the future is predetermined, as it already exists, and introducing change would mean it didn't exist because change would make it different than it was.

There is something wrong in the definitions we have of space, time, god, soul, spirit and many things related to our understanding of the universe. Are we making proegress or are we just assigning and changing definitions to ideas as we bumble along?

[Sir Bandelot]

The only way I would say dark matter is like god is that it fills the void in our understanding, as a form of scientific "faith".

In other words, where our understanding breaks down, where the model no longer makes sense, is where these ideas are introduced with little or no proof.

The reason they are attractive is they provide a possible answer and if they are real, they would support the model.

Other examples are string theory and the higgs boson.

Edited August 24, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Pliny]

The only way I would say dark matter is like god is that it fills the void in our understanding, as a form of scientific "faith".

I think mathematically they have proven the existence of something not defined by space, time, matter and energy. Now the question is to actually define it. Traditional religions defined it the only way they could according to their knowledge at the time. Basically, that things started from somewhere at some time from some place. There was no conception that anything could exist that wasn't composed of matter of some sort that existed in space at a particular time. Science of course suggests the big bang theory as the origin of the universe but there would have to have been something to go bang which they too try to explain as being something material.

For there to have been an origin of the physical universe there must have been something that wasn't part of the physical uniiverse. Something that wasn't composed of matter or energy and didn't exist in space or in time since none of that existed.

Now we have science that is at least looking for some thing that is, although still referred to in material terms; that is, dark matter, is mathematically predicted to exist but is not material - it is simply undefined.

Basically, I think we are limited somewhat by our language.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Pliny

[Bonam]

There's nothing mystical or supernatural about dark matter. It bears no relation to god or religion in any way. Dark matter just happens to be matter that interacts with the gravitational force but not the electromagnetic force. As kimmy mentioned, neutrinos are an example of such matter, and they are well understood physical particles. Other particles that are dark matter candidates but have not yet been proved to exist are axions, Higgs doublets, neutralinos, supersymmetric particles, Kaluza-Klein particles, and various others.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.4849v4.pdf

At this point, a far greater mystery is what is commonly referred to as "dark energy". According to findings from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, the universe is composed of 4% "normal" matter, 23% of dark matter, and 73% "dark energy". Explanations for the nature of dark energy are at this point only theoretical, though it could just be related to the fundamental energy density of the vacuum as postulated by Einstein in his idea of the cosmological constant.

[Pliny]

There's nothing mystical or supernatural about dark matter. It bears no relation to god or religion in any way. Dark matter just happens to be matter that interacts with the gravitational force but not the electromagnetic force. As kimmy mentioned, neutrinos are an example of such matter, and they are well understood physical particles. Other particles that are dark matter candidates but have not yet been proved to exist are axions, Higgs doublets, neutralinos, supersymmetric particles, Kaluza-Klein particles, and various others.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0903/0903.4849v4.pdf

At this point, a far greater mystery is what is commonly referred to as "dark energy". According to findings from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, the universe is composed of 4% "normal" matter, 23% of dark matter, and 73% "dark energy". Explanations for the nature of dark energy are at this point only theoretical, though it could just be related to the fundamental energy density of the vacuum as postulated by Einstein in his idea of the cosmological constant.

Once again language and current concepts fail me.

I don't see a neutrino defined as "dark matter", and especially not in the sense that I mean it, it is defined as a sub-atomic particle. Perhaps dark energy would be better term to convey the concept. But the fact is that a mathematical prediction of something that is nothing is made. Just as heaven and hell have never been found and nor has god science is just using different terminology to describe the same thing. The existence of something that cannot be detected in the physical universe and can only be proven through mathematical theory.

Actually, once and until matter can come up with an idea, I will assign ideas to that nebulous concept called life which is perhaps more rooted in the language of religion but scientifically is called dark matter or dark energy.

It's the same game, an attempt to explain the universe around us. The words that convey the concepts fall short of precision. Describing a cat does not convey the reality of a cat. If it was described tous we might recognize it in reality but only if the description were less than vague. something with fur and eyes that walked on four legs would not give us a vision of a cat nor would we be able to determine from that inadequate description if we had seen a cat. Since we have never seen god or a soul perhaps we are simply missing a good description of them. So the question is, is science just getting closer to a better description than religion with the ideas of dark matter or dark energy - those things that are not of the physical universe.

[Bonam]

They are of the physical universe. That's how we measured that they must compose 23% and 73% of the physical universe, respectively.

Actually, once and until matter can come up with an idea, I will assign ideas to that nebulous concept called life which is perhaps more rooted in the language of religion but scientifically is called dark matter or dark energy.

Life is not "scientifically called" dark matter or dark energy.

[Sir Bandelot]

They are of the physical universe. That's how we measured that they must compose 23% and 73% of the physical universe, respectively.

Only because it fits well with the standard model. That being that we believe there nust be missing mass that we cannot see, which is holding Galaxies together. Else based on our current observations and understanding they should fly apart.

But I read recently that scientists are starting to concede the fact that the Higgs Boson may not exist. The LHC experiments are far enough along now that they should have started to reveal some evidence, but has not.

Stephen Hawking is delighted about this. For one thing he made a $100 dollar bet that the Higgs boson would not be found. And what excites him more is that is shows something is wrong with our model or understanding of gravity. We need to re-think it.

Higgs boson may be a mirage, scientists hint

Edited August 29, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

Only because it fits well with the standard model. That being that we believe there nust be missing mass that we cannot see, which is holding Galaxies together. Else based on our current observations and understanding they should fly apart.

Yes, that's what the 23% refers to. The galaxies wouldn't actually "fly apart" though. The stars in the galaxies would still orbit the supermassive black hole at the core of each galaxy. The problem is in the speeds of the orbits. Starts further out orbit faster than they would be expected to if the only mass they were orbiting was the visible mass. Hence the need for some kind of matter that exerts a gravitational force but cannot be detected optically, that is, "dark matter".

But I read recently that scientists are starting to concede the fact that the Higgs Boson may not exist. The LHC experiments are far enough along now that they should have started to reveal some evidence, but has not.

The LHC hasn't even been run at full power yet. It won't be til 2014 according to the current timeline. From then, it will take 2-3 more years til enough data is in. I wouldn't expect an answer anywhere close to "definitive" on the existence of the Higgs Boson until 2017 at the earliest. The range has been narrowed, true, but the LHC was built to collide 7 TeV/nucleon beams for a reason, and has so far only used collision energies of 3.5 TeV/nucleon.

Stephen Hawking is delighted about this. For one thing he made a $100 dollar bet that the Higgs boson would not be found. And what excites him more is that is shows something is wrong with our model or understanding of gravity. We need to re-think it.

I agree, it would be exciting times. In the late 19th century, scientists believed physics was all but "done". Just a few "minor problems" were left to solved, like the derivation of the black body spectrum. When that didn't pan out, we saw the emergence of the revolutionary fields of relativity and quantum mechanics, which led to previously unforeseeable technological advances. The same happening again in the 21st century would be very interesting indeed.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Bonam

[Sir Bandelot]

The galaxies wouldn't actually "fly apart" though. The stars in the galaxies would still orbit the supermassive black hole at the core of each galaxy. The problem is in the speeds of the orbits. Starts further out orbit faster than they would be expected to if the only mass they were orbiting was the visible mass. Hence the need for some kind of matter that exerts a gravitational force but cannot be detected optically, that is, "dark matter".

Same thing as what I was saying. At the speed at which they are currently rotating, they should fly apart because there does not appear to be enough mass there to provide the gravity needed to keep them in orbit. Something unknown (presumably, gravity but now that is not so certain) is holding them together. Hence the theory that there is dark matter.

The LHC hasn't even been run at full power yet. It won't be til 2014 according to the current timeline. From then, it will take 2-3 more years til enough data is in. I wouldn't expect an answer anywhere close to "definitive" on the existence of the Higgs Boson until 2017 at the earliest. The range has been narrowed, true, but the LHC was built to collide 7 TeV/nucleon beams for a reason, and has so far only used collision energies of 3.5 TeV/nucleon.

True, and I'm surprised they could day this so early on in the experiments. But that's what the propeller head boys are saying. Maybe the article is wrong or misleading. However Hawking himself has responded so there must be something to it.

It's not a done deal but early indications are negative, and they know it's about statistics that there is no expected sharp cutoff between 3.5 TeV and 7 TeV.

I agree, it would be exciting times. In the late 19th century, scientists believed physics was all but "done". Just a few "minor problems" were left to solved, like the derivation of the black body spectrum. When that didn't pan out, we saw the emergence of the revolutionary fields of relativity and quantum mechanics, which led to previously unforeseeable technological advances. The same happening again in the 21st century would be very interesting indeed.

I recall scientists say similar things in the late 1990's. We joked about it in our laboratory. "Scientists can all go home".

[Pliny]

They are of the physical universe. That's how we measured that they must compose 23% and 73% of the physical universe, respectively.

Life is not "scientifically called" dark matter or dark energy.

What it is called is not the important point. The important point is that since time is a physical universe manifestation it means the physical universe has an origin. The thing, if I may call it that, that existed before time and brought time into existence has no physical universe properties. If you are calling dark matter or dark energy a part of the physical universe, then that is not what I am talking about.

I have the same problem explaining to an adherent of religion that God does not sit on a throne in heaven and there is no hell, if he holds those concepts. If one holds the concept there is only the physical universe and parts of it we haven't discovered then that is that persons concept and I won't get across the idea that there is a "thing" that is not a part of the physical universe. Or maybe you could get the idea but reject it, not dissimilar to holding the idea of a God sitting on a throne will invite the rejection of other ideas.

Science and religion both exist for the same purpose, to offer an explanation of the universe around us. Science currently supercedes religion, only because it can explain more physical universe phenomena than religion which is tied to older concepts, and is based upon observation but scientific observation is always done with physical universe instruments so science will never rise to an understanding of anything immeasurable so finds itself looking for tinier and tinier particles with larger and larger energies. Although, I have never seen an idea measured I know they exist - are they the tiniest particle science is elusively looking for? You might argue an idea is, and can change and is therefore not life and you would be correct. Existence, introduces time, so it is perhaps the first idea and closest to a description of the thing called life.

[Pliny]

I guess the scientists all went home?

Remember the old theory that if there were a set of twins and one went into a spaceship and travelled close to the speed of light around the uiverse and came back forty earth years later he would have aged less than his twin brother who had remained on Earth. Ha, ha. Isn't that funny. Almost as bad as believing the Earth only started 6000 years ago.

[Bonam]

I guess the scientists all went home?

Remember the old theory that if there were a set of twins and one went into a spaceship and travelled close to the speed of light around the uiverse and came back forty earth years later he would have aged less than his twin brother who had remained on Earth. Ha, ha. Isn't that funny. Almost as bad as believing the Earth only started 6000 years ago.

It's not a theory, it's a direct consequence of relativity, which has been directly and experimentally confirmed (using twin clocks, not twin humans).

[Pliny]

It's not a theory, it's a direct consequence of relativity, which has been directly and experimentally confirmed (using twin clocks, not twin humans).

Really, all that time is is a measurement of the change of position of physical particles in relation to each other. Eighty years is eighty years. The clocks may have different times but one is not older than the other.

Apparently, there is an astronaut that is a couple of seconds younger than everyone else on Earth.

yuk yuk.

[The_Squid]

Really, all that time is is a measurement of the change of position of physical particles in relation to each other. Eighty years is eighty years. The clocks may have different times but one is not older than the other.

Apparently, there is an astronaut that is a couple of seconds younger than everyone else on Earth.

yuk yuk.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Eighty years is not eighty years, depending on how fast you are moving.

Summary

A moving clock runs more slowly than one that is stationary with respect to the person observing the clocks.  At normal speeds, the effect is very small, but as speeds approach those of the speed of light, the effect becomes more pronounced.

. http://www.marts100.com/timedil.htm

[Pliny]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Eighty years is not eighty years, depending on how fast you are moving.

. http://www.marts100.com/timedil.htm

An object that is far away looks smaller than when it is closer. Is that space dilation or is it just a point of reference. Space and distance are the factors in determining size. We could predict the apparent size of an object at different distances but it is always the same size relative to itself.

Speed and motion are the factors used to predict the location of something in space at a particular time. When you are using light it is funny but say, in the example given in this cite you posted www.marts100.com/timedil.htm of the ball going up and down from the point of view of someone under the ball and traveling in a zigzag pattern to someone seeing the person and ball going by sees the time going slower as it appears to be travelling farther. Time dilation.

The fact is if you take person A the one under the ball he is viewing different light than the one that is observing them going by. So we have to look at what light we are using to measure time dilation.

It is just measuring speed of light at different reference points. The speed of the light between two mirrors is not the same light from our observation point.

Basically, eighty years is eighty years. If you want to look at it from some different reference point you can.

There was an experiment with two, I think atomic time clocks. One of the clocks was put on a plane and the other stayed in New York. The plane went around the world and the clock that was on it was 59 nanoseconds slower than the one that remained in New York. That 59 nanoseconds is supposed to indicate time went slower. Simply looked at, if time went slower then the object itself would be in a different time, 59 nanoseconds behind everything else, it obviously isn't. Well, I wonder if that's been duplicated? It exsits now not 59 nanoseconds later. Can I see something that is one second out of time? Only if I recall it. Mathematically it all makes sense just like space dilation. It's all relative.

[kimmy]

I can't stop laughing...

-k

[Pliny]

I can't stop laughing...

-k

Wait til the scientists come back. I'll really have you on the floor.

[Sir Bandelot]

Can we watch?