Dark Matter: Scientists May Finally Have "Seen" It

[wizzy555]

This is meant as clarification of the comments, not criticism of the article

We don't search for "Dark Matter" we search for "candidates for dark matter" i.e. stuff we didn't know before that could be what is filling the mass discrepancy.

So when a "new" thing is detected it needs to be identified, quantified and analysed to see if it fills the "hole" "dark matter" leaves us.

Once we find it, it probably won't be called dark matter any-more, it will be "gluoninos" or "sprotons" or "Gionottis"

Of course "dark matter" may end up being 5 completely different things.

 

[MrFalconfly]

And the gravitational lensing thing is just a logical extension of dark matter's apparent high gravitational pull.
Nothing I would classify as "God of the gaps" or "I-dunno-but-something-must-be-doing-it-matter."

Gravitational Lensing gives you an idea of the mass you're observing.

And if you observe gravitational lensing without actually seeing any mass in any appreciable quantity, then one must conclude that some other kind of matter is there, bending the light.

 

[Pyrian]

Emphasis on 'trying.'

Heh, yeah, I've re-read all your posts and I'm not actually sure what you're arguing, or more specifically, why you seem to have a problem with "I-dunno-but-something-must-be-doing-it-matter", which is wordy but IMO spot on.

 

[Pyrian]

Emphasis on 'trying.'

Heh, yeah, I've re-read all your posts and I'm not actually sure what you're arguing, or more specifically, why you seem to have a problem with "I-dunno-but-something-must-be-doing-it-matter", which is wordy but IMO spot on.

Because I feel that nickname portrays dark matter as a cop-out explanation used for anything that scientists dont fully understand...

"I-dunno-but-something-must-be-doing-it-matter" cannot be a cop-out explanation because it is literally not an explanation in the first place, but an admission that we have an observation with no specific confirmed explanation. That's also the opposite of a cop-out.

 

[MrFalconfly]

It feels like another attempt to drag science as a whole down to the level of creationism by trying to portray scientists as too eager to jump the gun on attributing causes to dark matter.

At least that's what I think it mostly is.

Is that any more clear?

Except in this case they literally can't be more honest.

Dark Matter, literally means "Fucked if we know what's doing it, but something is happening and we don't know why".

 

[wizzy555]

It feels like another attempt to drag science as a whole down to the level of creationism by trying to portray scientists as too eager to jump the gun on attributing causes to dark matter.

At least that's what I think it mostly is.

Is that any more clear?

Except in this case they literally can't be more honest.

Dark Matter, literally means "Fucked if we know what's doing it, but something is happening and we don't know why".

To be honest it may not even be "dark" or "matter".

 

[FalloutJack]

Also, this has ENORMOUS consequences for quantum physics, and thus, technology on Earth!

Could you explain what you mean? I wish to know what this very cool thing - given all that I've read on dark matter - might impact exactly?

 

[MrFalconfly]

It feels like another attempt to drag science as a whole down to the level of creationism by trying to portray scientists as too eager to jump the gun on attributing causes to dark matter.

At least that's what I think it mostly is.

Is that any more clear?

Except in this case they literally can't be more honest.

Dark Matter, literally means "Fucked if we know what's doing it, but something is happening and we don't know why".

To be honest it may not even be "dark" or "matter".

That sentence doesn't make sense given how vaguely Dark Matter is defined.

 

[JennAnge]

This is meant as clarification of the comments, not criticism of the article

We don't search for "Dark Matter" we search for "candidates for dark matter" i.e. stuff we didn't know before that could be what is filling the mass discrepancy.

So when a "new" thing is detected it needs to be identified, quantified and analysed to see if it fills the "hole" "dark matter" leaves us.

Once we find it, it probably won't be called dark matter any-more, it will be "gluoninos" or "sprotons" or "Gionottis"

Of course "dark matter" may end up being 5 completely different things.

Excellent and concise observation.

Though I bet it'll remain 'Dark matter' to 99.99% of the non-scientific journals unless something catchier is coined. Even if they do determine it's composed of a series of different things.

As long as it doesn't turn out their readings were just the grad student microwaving his popcorn during the all night stints. (I joke, I know these labs know how to isolate their equipment properly by now, and microwave wouldn't produce that kind of blip and etc etc - it just reminded me of an old article I read about SETI a long time back where 'regular signals' they were pikcing up and that were getting everyone into a tizzy turned out to be a janitor microwaving their supper every night)

If this does turn out to be real, astronomers and physisists are going to have a field day.