Scientific Propositions That Piss You Off

File: tumblr_n19lpw49ew1rctz11o1_500[1].gif (251KB, 500x443px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 500x443px

Thats theoretical physics for you

>>7953875
is there any other experimental evidence of dark matter besides "the observed mass of the universe doesn't add up to our calculations so there must be dark matter"?

It's not as crazy as MOND.

There is other evidence for dark matter:
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/

>>7953923
How do these people sleep at night proposing such bullshit...

Lol. You just dont get it do you. 96% of the universe is dark energy. Dark energy reacts against matter. It's all out there pushing matter inwards stopping them flying apart...

>>7953992
Like the idea 96% of the universe is dark energy which pushes against matter, thereby keeping galaxies together.. utter tosh

>>7953923
>>7953992
Models that include gravitationally interacting 'dark' matter very accurately reproduce the universe as it's observed. As OP disingenuously oversimplified, the rotation rates of stars at the fringes of galaxies are higher than would be expected given the mass of the galaxy as estimated from the visible matter, i.e. that which emits electromagnetic radiation
>but if it's just matter we can't see, couldn't it be dust or rocks?
These still emit at infrared, and the amount of dust needed to make up the mass would significantly affect the spectrographic properties of the galaxy - the missing matter must not interact electromagnetically at all.
>but couldn't it be something that just looks like invisible matter
Yes, yes it could - and numerous hypotheses on what that might be have been put forward. But as yet none replicate what's observed as well as model in which there's just a bunch of stuff there that we can't see.

>>7953901
If this is even close to the strangest thing you've heard in physics, then you don't know any good physics.

>>7953992
>>7954024
>>7954030
Well you all clearly don't understand what dark energy means or entails anyway, so of course it seems wrong, because your understanding of it is wrong
>all
>implying not samefag

>>7954036
OP here.
>speaking of dark matter particle bullshit and fairy tail physics propositions
>noobs bringing up dark energy
u wot m9

>>7954034
I just don't get it why someone would go through the trouble of inventing new particles with silly properties issues with gravity when we
>don't actually have
a full understanding of the god damn thing.
Why wouldn't the problem be in quantum gravity instead of invisible non-interacting particles that...interact on a big scale.

>>7954073
Considering issues with gravity*

>>7954073
Because of experimental evidence, and no other competing hypothesis. Do you think astronomers just pick the most ridiculous idea, just to be edgy?

The CMB power spectrum makes it evident that there is mass out there that isn't Baryonic in nature.

If you don't like the notion of dark matter and dark energy - go ahead and propose your own idea. Unfortunately it has to pass a certain level of scientific review, which dark matter did.

>>7953875
The term you're looking for is "ad hoc" hypothesis.

>>7954256
>implying it didn't pass just because there is no other competing hypothesis
>implying the mismatch is not all about some weird quantum gravity property

>go ahead and propose your own idea
Strawman argument much?

>>7953875
>Gravity is so much weaker than the other forces and GR doesn't fit well with quantum physics...
>GR MUST BE WRONG! WE NEED A QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY! WHERE MUH GRAVITONS AT!?

Couldn't it just be that gravity is fundamentally different than the other forces?

My professor said that gravity is actually caused by a "quantam nexus orbiting the galaxy in a 7 dimensional radius" and that gravity outside our galaxy "would work very different if it even exisated at all"

Is this legit?

>>7954281
>no other competing hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor%E2%80%93vector%E2%80%93scalar_gravity

Guess what: they all happen to be worse models than dark matter. A lack of competing hypotheses is not due to lack of effort; the competing hypotheses were just not that good.

>>7954449
Modified Newtonian mechanics actually do solve a lot of problems. Just like dark matter hypothesis, it's still under development.

>>7954423
If he's a professor for English or theology or some soft science, then you have your answer right there.

If he's indeed a physics professor, ask to see his diploma and tell us where he graduated.

If all that is legit and above board, then have a fish.

>>7953923
Yes. The strongest evidence is that the CMB powerspectrum shows that the matter density is much higher than the baron density. Primordial abundances limit the baryon density to lower than the observed matter density. Rotation curves flatten. Galaxy clusters can measure the same mass ratio with lensing and x-ray. The bullet cluster...

>>7953992
How do people who know so little about a topic feel qualified to talk shit?

>>7955719
MOND can't even explain galaxy clustering, an even more basic result than rotation curves. It's ugly model which simply doesn't explain most of cosmology.

>>7957366
Just a note - you don't need physics phd to realize proposing a particle that passes through your hand is yet on the brink of becoming a black hole, doesnt interact woth matter yet it does on a big scale is plain desperate. Instead of wasting resources and imagination on this bullshit, why not try to actually unddrstand gravity's nature?

>>7957880
>Instead
Lucky science doesn't run on your prejudiced. People tried to "fix" gravity, it hasn't worked anywhere near as well. Observations like the bullet cluster make any modified gravity extremely ugly.

The almost black hole is only a proposed particle.

>>7954073
QG researcher here. QG is absolutely not going to have any effects at that scale. There's a perfectly good reason astrophysicists don't bother learning details of QG or string theory.

It was a long time ago, but it was proposed that antimatter would basically anti-gravitate. Therefore, it would only exist at an atomic level and be so spread out it would basically be invisible.

>>7958331
I'll add that it's pretty much impossible to prove, as the only antimatter we observe is in particle accelerators.
It's got so much kinetic energy that it's disintegrated before we can see the (very weak) effect of the Earth's gravity field on it.

>>7958331
Dark matter however gravitates.

Theoretical physicists are such cucks
>>7954060
Also this

From a particle physics perspective there is absolutely nothing wrong with having stable massive particles that dont interact electromagnetically. In fact there could be lots of stuff that would only become evident if you had much much bigger accelerators.