EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Dark matter. Sounds like a catch all designed to make a math model work properly.

      • bitwaba@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do you think solutions to dark matter are tied up in a unified GR + quantum mechanics theory?

          • bitwaba@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            That sounds like it’s trying to take large scale phenomena and make them work on the quantum scale. What if the solution is the other way around: make modified quantum mechanics work on the large scale? (I guess those are effectively the same thing. You’d need a quantum gravity theory one way or another. Sorry, layman here. Just spitballin’ ideas)

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        The experimental observation did not reveal Dark Matter. Nobody has seen or proven Dark Matter, actually. That’s why it is called Dark Matter. The observation just showed that the math model was flawed, and they invented “Dark Matter” to make up for it.

        My personal take is that they will one day add the right correction factor that should have been in the fomulas all the time.

        Just like with E=mc² not being completely correct. It’s actually E²=m²c⁴ + p²c². The p²c² is not adding much, but it is still there.

    • PixelAlchemist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re not wrong. According to the current scientific understanding of the universe, that’s exactly what it is. They just gave it a badass name.

    • DogWater@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m with you here, I don’t understand dark matter and dark energy and the expansion of the universe. We see shit moving all the time in the universe. I’m still not convinced we just don’t understand the motion of the universe outside our envelope of observation and it’s explainable with conventional matter and energy. Im trying to learn a lot tho. I’m gonna watch that video someone posted to you.

    • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know, I was so hype a few years ago when a new gravity well model supposedly eliminated the need for Dark Matter, but recently it’s been in the news as a scandal that also doesn’t fix everything.

      • Chetzemoka@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s no scandal. Some people who are leading proponents of MOND theory recently published a new paper using what might be the best scenario we currently have to detect MOND (wide binary stars), and their more precise calculations…are not consistent with MOND. They published evidence against the very theory they were betting on.

        https://youtu.be/HlNSvrYygRc?si=otqhH6VINIsCMfiS

        • doctorcrimson@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The best kind of researchers, I bet that really took a lot of courage to do since it’s so far from human nature.