[Closed] Dark matter? what's the point?

I think a lot of people see this, and other such theoretical physics, as being only related to "out there", to the rest of the universe, and therefore doesn't really affect us. However, the fact is we are part of the universe and the search for what makes up the majority of the universe is a search for what makes up the majority of us, and everything around us.

The implications of identifying, and isolating, the very essence of what makes space, and everything in it, behave the way it does is quite literally astronomic, but also potentially terrifying.

Imagine the potential impact on communications, and maybe even travel, such a discovery could have.

the cost/benefit of the search for dark matter seems hard to justify.

Think of it as the cost of having really clever people do clever stuff instead of stacking shelves.

A bike made out of dark matter, truly stealth.

but very heavy...

... but powered by my dark energy bars I could cycle up any hill, if I can find them in the bottom of my rucksack!

Why?!

[img] [/img]

Do you really need any other reason?!

can't believe that people are ignorant enough to dissmiss theoretical physics and general science as wasteful yet would be outraged if there was no electricity in their homes no mobile phone network, smartphones, computers, bicycles made of a metal extracted by electrolysis of bauxite or that their life expectancy will increase by 20 years in their own lifetime

Some condescending ****s on here, maybe I worded it badly but my point was that trusted and well established theories are only correct to the best of mankinds meagre knowledge and can be proven wrong when a new discovery is made, as has happened for millennia, just because our understanding of the universe is greater now does not mean this won't continue to happen.

you worded it very badly.

A bike made out of dark matter, truly stealth.

But you wouldn't be able to sit on it!

Has anyone said differently ?
I think some of what we know is a fact for ever these days. We are not cavemen creating creation myths. Evolution for example but the simple fact is science.knows it does not know everything or it would just stop.
As for hypothesis it explains one thing and a theory explains a series of interlated or class events and is far wider reaching. Evolution is a theory random mutation a hypothesis

well established theories are only correct to the best of mankinds meagre knowledge and can be proven wrong when a new discovery is made

Well.. theories have context. Gravitation for example is not WRONG, we just didn't realise that it is only useful within certain bounds. Within those bounds it's still fine.

my point was that trusted and well established theories are only correct to the best of mankind's meagre knowledge and can be proven wrong when a new discovery is made, as has happened for millennia, just because our understanding of the universe is greater now does not mean this won't continue to happen

Yes, that's pretty much what science is. That's its greatest strength.

But you wouldn't be able to sit on it!

How do you know? Nobody knows what dark matter is!!

Nice quote about the 96% richmtb, it looks interesting reading.

I don't know if you, or anyone else with a bit of decent subject knowledge, can answer a little question it raised for me.
As i understand it, the 23% is the extra (so far) unobserved mass required to balance the laws of gravity at the Galaxy scale/level.
And the 73% is the extra energy/force required to explain how the universe expansion appears to be accelerating.
Now, is that 73% based on our estimate of the mass of things with or without the added 23%?

a lot of people see this, and other such theoretical physics, as being only related to "out there", to the rest of the universe, and therefore doesn't really affect us.

So true about so many things, sadly.

All those for the B Ark please form an orderly queue......

According to "Horizon" this week, space time is not evenly spread, it's clumped and stretched like the froth on top of a capuccino.

This means that as light travels through it, it's speed varies, despite Einstein's theory of relativity that maintains the speed of light is a constant. Crikey.

It's amazing, BTW, how many of those who sneer at science display such woeful ignorance about it. The constant and repetitive misuse and misunderstanding of what the word "theory" means, for instance. As in - "It's only a theory", and so on.

I like Richard Dawkins. He helps to man the redoubt of The Enlightenment against the yammering circus of superstition that now complains about not being taken seriously, as if it deserved to be.

I agree with everything he says, except perhaps his willingness to give an infinitesimally small measure of probability that a god exists.

I'm not that generous.

This means that as light travels through it, it's speed varies, despite Einstein's theory of relativity that maintains the speed of light is a constant.

The speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant. The time taken to get from source to observer isn't necessarily what you'd expect, for the same reason that driving on a windy road is slower than as the crow flies.

I like Richard Dawkins. He helps to man the redoubt of The Enlightenment against the yammering circus of superstition that now complains about not being taken seriously, as if it deserved to be.

I agree with everything he says, except perhaps his willingness to give an infinitesimally small measure of probability that a god exists.

Me too but I await a credible theory as to the existence of god..

The problem with Science & Scientists is that the talk to each other not the rest of the world. They have rules and conventions about what a theory is and facts etc. The media picks up on these witterings as fact (as thats what a scientist says...)

How do you know? Nobody knows what dark matter is!!

Yeah but we know what it isn't. It isn't normal matter that has an EM field - other wise it wouldn't be "dark".

The reason you don't fall through the chair you are sitting on is down to the electromagnetic force. In the absence of any EM interaction dark matter would just pass right through you.

So you wouldn't be able to sit on a dark matter bike

The speed of light IN A VACUUM is constant.

Ah.

Artificial conditions only, then...

This means that as light travels through it, it's speed varies, despite Einstein's theory of relativity that maintains the speed of light is a constant. Crikey

Isn't that getting back to the idea of an aether, as disproved by Michelson-Morley?

Artificial conditions only, then...

Stick it in a magic field and it goes really slowly, like golden treacle.

Cox to the forum Cox to the forum (Brian that is....)

Oh gods, no - I'm sure he's a lovely man, but he's at the heart of the dumbing-down of science on TV. I don't need an arrow to know which way gravity acts, thanks, Brian.

I like the fact that people are posting on this thread using high powered, relatively tiny computing devices, and are still insisting that theoretical physics doesn't serve any purpose.

The speed of light IN A VACUUM [i]in non curved spacetime [/i] is constant.

FTFY

I don't need an arrow to know which way gravity acts, thanks, Brian.

Again Final boarding call for the B ARK!!

Isn't that getting back to the idea of an aether, as disproved by Michelson-Morley?

Shouldn't think so, unless you think that's another way of describing "dark matter"...

As I understand it, it's been found that neutrinos from distant star explosions seem to be arriving at different times. If spacetime was even, this wouldn't happen.

Some neutrinos are "heavier" than others and aren't affected as much by the bumps and lumps, but "lighter" ones are. At least I think that's what they were saying...

Edit: Perhaps I need an arrow.

Oh gods, no - I'm sure he's a lovely man, but he's at the heart of the dumbing-down of science on TV. I don't need an arrow to know which way gravity acts, thanks, Brian

Really!?

REALLY!?

I would say he is at the heart of encouraging the current interest in science on TV.

I've not seen geodesics in spacetime and the Chandrasehkar limit come up too
often in Eastenders

[img] [/img]

REALLY!?

Yes. Horizon has been dumbed down (remember when you had to go sit in a dark room for an hour afterwards?), Equinox was brilliant. We used to have really good quality advanced science programming, not written for the lowest common denominator.

I took my daughter to visit her grandmother yesterday evening, and found her swearing at the Eddie Izzard genetics programme on TV - as a retired biochemist she was picking holes in the science all over.

There's nothing wrong with basic hand-waving science programmes for those unable or unwilling to think hard - but there has to be the better stuff too, and you can't make it inaccurate no matter how basic it is - you just can't.

[quote=bencooper ]
I took my daughter to visit her grandmother yesterday evening, and found her swearing at the Eddie Izzard genetics programme on TV - as a retired biochemist she was picking holes in the science all over.

There's nothing wrong with basic hand-waving science programmes for those unable or unwilling to think hard - but there has to be the better stuff too, and you can't make it inaccurate no matter how basic it is - you just can't.

Ever heard of "lies to children"? Sometimes you have to slightly alter fact so that people can actually understand wtf you're on about and then at the next step of knowledge you correct what was said etc...

There's nothing wrong with basic hand-waving science programmes for those unable or unwilling to think hard - but there has to be the better stuff too

Given a fixed amount of airtime and money for science programmes, it's better to make ones that appeal to a wider audience to bring people's general knowledge up a few notches, than to appeal to a small set of geeks.

If you're that hardcore buy some books and read them.

the search for the missing mass of the universe

I know, IGMC......

Yes. Horizon has been dumbed down (remember when you had to go sit in a dark room for an hour afterwards?), Equinox was brilliant. We used to have really good quality advanced science programming, not written for the lowest common denominator.

Agree with you there. Horizon is often pretty thin on actual content.

You can't level the same accusation at Cox though. His documentaries are actually very good and have a decent amount of actual science in them. Stargazing and Wonders of life have both been excellent.

Horizon has often aimed to be about current developments. They have to schedule in a series' worth of programmes, and if not much science is in the news at that point, they end up struggling. Been better lately though, it was worse about 5-10 years ago.

Ever heard of "lies to children"? Sometimes you have to slightly alter fact so that people can actually understand wtf you're on about and then at the next step of knowledge you correct what was said etc...

this +1

GCSE, a-Level and Degree level chemistry all tell you that the last one was just a model that worked upto a certain level of detail. Condense the whole of someones field of science down to an hour and you've got to stick with some failry basic models.

More power to the thickos.

I like the fact that people are posting on this thread using high powered, relatively tiny computing devices, and are still insisting that theoretical physics doesn't serve any purpose.

Yes, even very theoretical things, that don't appear to affect things on a real human scale have really quite practical benefits in the long term. I mean who could have predicted that many years in the future relativity would be a key part of getting people from A to B in their cars (GPS systems only work because of the designer's understanding of special & general relativity).

Or who would have thought in the 1800s that philosophy of logic could at some point become the core thing supporting pretty much all business transactions (computer languages are essentially applied logic).