- #1
- 10,544
- 2,323
If WIMPs are the explanation for dark matter should it clump together to form dark matter "planets"?
CWatters said:Forgive my ignorance but wouldn't gravity do it?
Well that is very convenient as this theory cannot be falsified.Light Bearer said:What I've gathered from this thread is that WIMPS only interact gravitationally with themselves, matter and antimatter?
Passionflower said:Well that is very convenient as this theory cannot be falsified.
If our gravitation laws do not match with experiment and we simply introduce 'invisible pink WIMPS' that have no other observables than adjusting for the experimental discrepancy with theory I'd say we do not have a valid theory.
Not really.Nabeshin said:Ah, we have a MOND believer among us!
Not really, we can always state that we do not currently have a scientific explanation for it. There is no shame in that.Chronos said:If you find dark matter to be objectionable, your options are limited
Passionflower said:Well that is very convenient as this theory cannot be falsified.
If our gravitation laws do not match with experiment and we simply introduce 'invisible pink WIMPS' that have no other observables than adjusting for the experimental discrepancy with theory I'd say we do not have a valid theory.
Passionflower said:Not really, we can always state that we do not currently have a scientific explanation for it. There is no shame in that.
Not at all, we can present theories that in principle can be falsified and have predictive values.Drakkith said:By your train of thought we should just say we have no idea how anything works because we don't fully understand it.
Light Bearer said:What I've gathered from this thread is that WIMPS only interact gravitationally with themselves, matter and antimatter?
Passionflower said:Not at all, we can present theories that in principle can be falsified and have predictive values.
However making numbers fit by introducing entities whose only observables are used to make the numbers fit is no theory at all in my opinion, we simply could not falsify it because there are no other observables than making the numbers fit.
I think we just have to agree to disagree, personally I find the postulation of further undetectable matter only on the ground that it will match the numbers a low in the history of science.
Passionflower said:Not really, we can always state that we do not currently have a scientific explanation for it. There is no shame in that.
I disagree, I am not saying that it is the case but it may be also true that the laws of gravitation work slightly different at low strengths. Or is that perhaps a sacrilegious idea?mrspeedybob said:That's no different then the "dark matter" that you are objecting to.
Observations were made that seemed to indicate the presence of something that we couldn't see. No body knows what it is, but it's awkward to call it "an unexplained source of apparent space-time curvature" so we call it dark matter instead. We may discover at some point that it's not matter at all, but some other effect. Until we know what it is, we need something to call it. "Dark matter" is as good a name as any for an unexplained phenomena.
Passionflower said:I disagree, I am not saying that it is the case but it may be also true that the laws of gravitation work slightly different at low strengths. Or is that perhaps a sacrilegious idea?
From a phenomenological point of view we are confronted with a situation that does not rhyme with theory. That could mean that the theory needs to be adjusted or that could mean that we missed a factor.
To assert by default that it is the latter is in my opinion a bias that unscientific.
Not only that, many people seem to have no problem to completely ignore the standard model and just pose some new kind of matter, as if it is some new flavor of chips. As I wrote before I am of the opinion that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof.
But, apparently it is not done on this forum to simply question dark matter, if one does people resort to grave insults, so we should probably end the discussion about this as there is no point.
Bobbywhy said:Dark Matter was invoked to explain a large number of observations. But as yet, no dark matter particle signatures (evidence) has been detected or observed. Using the simplest or most economic argument without the introduction of exotic ingredients, Einstein’s General Relativity at large scales may need to be revised and extended to account for all the observed dynamics. The very existence of Dark Matter remains an open question until empirical evidence from observations becomes available.
Bobbywhy
People seem to forget (or sometimes not even know) that there is a proportionality constant in Einstein's field equations. This constant is not derived from GR but plugged in by assuming Newton's law is always true for the weak field and low speed.ImaLooser said:Well, General Relativity is already the simplest and most economic argument. There is not much latitude to adjust it.
ImaLooser said:Well, General Relativity is already the simplest and most economic argument. There is not much latitude to adjust it.
Besides, some galaxies have dark matter and some don't. I don't see how fiddling with GR could help you with that.
Extended theories of gravity are alternative theories that aim to explain the behavior of gravity at larger scales and different conditions than what is described by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. These theories propose modifications to the laws of gravity in order to account for phenomena such as dark matter and dark energy.
Yes, extended theories of gravity have been proposed as potential explanations for dark matter and dark energy. These theories suggest that instead of the existence of undetectable matter and energy, the observed effects could be explained by modifications to the laws of gravity.
Extended theories of gravity differ from the current understanding of gravity in several ways. They often introduce new fields or particles to the theory, and they modify the equations of gravity to better fit observations at larger scales. Additionally, they may propose a different geometric interpretation of gravity than what is described by General Relativity.
Dark matter and dark energy are inferred to exist based on a variety of observations and measurements. For dark matter, evidence includes the observed rotational speeds of galaxies, gravitational lensing effects, and the large-scale structure of the universe. For dark energy, evidence includes the accelerating expansion of the universe as measured by supernova observations and the cosmic microwave background radiation.
While there is ongoing research and debate surrounding extended theories of gravity, they are not currently widely accepted by the scientific community as the primary explanation for dark matter and dark energy. This is due to the fact that these theories have yet to be fully tested and confirmed by observations, and they often require significant modifications to well-established theories such as General Relativity.