doctorcrimsonWhat is Something Scientific that you just don't believe in at all?
For me it’s Colloidal Silver. It’s been used as antimicrobial in wound dressings in the past but I just don’t trust it at all. The reason it suddenly resurged was during the Covid Pandemic a bunch of televangelist snake oil salesmen started endorsing it. If a product contains silver I won’t use it at all, and furthermore I reject brands that sell it.
A_ASilver in these bandages simply acts as a catalyst which uses oxygen from the air to oxidize bad stuff : it’s like having a tiny source of peroxide.
Cool, it’s overuse is still bullshit preying on the feeble minded. Even the FDA has had to step in several times the last 2 years because of how crazy it’s been getting.
CatoblepasColloidal silver sold as a cure or “supplement” is absolutely a scam and potentially harmful (it can and has permanently turned people blue/gray). But silver itself is incredibly useful as an antimicrobial and is commonly used in bandages in burn wards.
Silver isn’t the only metal that is effective against bacteria, but other than brass and gold most other options are either toxic to humans in some way or not as effective.
TL;DR: bandaids with silver are fine, colloidal silver you put in your body isn’t.
Interestingly I really only know about because it’s “popular” in the biohacker space for helping with cavities (as in AFTER you have cleaned a cavity you can use it to seal and protect it from further damage). Cheaper and more accessible then proper dental care.
I am afraid to ask this but what cavities are you referring to? Do biohackers feel the need for more cavities usually?
Cavities in teeth!! Oh no, I don’t know of recommending anywhere else!
Pretty sure these uses are snake oil, where it does have use is blocking male phenotype expression in flowering plants. I use it to make feminized cannabis seed.
Silver nitrate is used medically as a cauterizing agent for wounds. Had to apply this when an inch deep 2 inch diameter abdominal wound healed to surface level after packing and changing gauze on it for 3 months, else it would have kept “healing” itself outward.
Dark matter. Sounds like a catch all designed to fill in blanks that make a math model work properly.
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.
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). It's been the dissenting voice in the modern Great Debate about dark matter.
On one side are the dark matter scientists who think there's a vast category of phenomenon out there FAR beyond our current science. That the universe is far larger and more complex than we currently know, and so we must dedicate ourselves to exploring the unexplored. The other side, the
On the other you have the MOND scientists, who hope they can prevent that horizon from flying away from them by tweaking the math on some physical laws. It basically adds a term to our old physics equations to explain why low acceleration systems experience significantly different forces than the high-acceleration systems with which we are more familiar -- though their explanations for WHY the math ought be tweaked I always found totally unsatisfactory -- to make the current, easy-to-grock laws fit the observations.
With the big problem being that it doesn't work. It explains some galactic motion, but not all. It sometimes fits wide binary star systems kind of OK, but more often doesn't. It completely fails to explain the lensing and motion of huge galactic clusters. At this point, MOND has basically been falsified. Repeatedly, predictions it made have failed.
Dark matter theories -- that is, the theories that say there are who new categories of stuff out there we don't understand at all -- still are the best explanation. That means we're closer to the starting line of understanding the cosmos instead of the finish line many wanted us to be nearing. But I think there's a razor in there somewhere, about trusting the scientist who understands the limits of our knowledge over the one who seems confident we nearly know everything.
ChetzemokaThere’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.
The best kind of researchers, I bet that really took a lot of courage to do since it’s so far from human nature.
I mean that is pretty much correct.
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.
Do you want slightly darker matter? Cause that’s how you get slightly darker matter!
Great example, and this brings up a great point about this topic - there's a difference between what's a scientific pursuit vs. what is current established scientific understanding.
Dark matter is a topic being studied to try to find evidence of it existing, but as of now there's is zero physical evidence that it actually exists.
Its observed gravitational effects is evidence. Otherwise nobody would have given it a name.
Proof of gravity from an unknown source affecting an object isn’t indicative of that source’s characteristics, though.
We don't even know if the force involved is gravity. In fact we don't even know if a force is involved at all.
I mean yeah that's why it's called dark matter. Because we know nothing about it except that it has gravity and doesn't interact much (if at all) with electromagnetic waves.
The problem is Dark Matter is a theory that proposes specifically currently unobserved matter exists to solve our math problem. That’s not something we can automatically assume, imo. It’s looking highly probable, but not certain. It’s not just a blanket term for impossible to understand forces, okay, it’s not a pseudonym for C’Thulu, it’s a very specific solution among many.
Nobody "automatically assumes" anything. Dark matter is the best candidate of possible explanations because it explains observation and still fits the standard model. Even if they find the necessary particles eventually, nobody would call it certain though. Certainty is a unicorn.
People in this thread literally are calling it a certainty. I’ve basically said the exact same thing as you and gotten downvoted to heck for it.
Well, not really. Your first reply to me got downvoted because you setup a strawman - arguing against something that wasn't even the point.
Your second, the one you claimed said the same as mine, insinuated Dark Matter is just some mathy explanation among many. This doesn't give it credit. It's the current no 1 explanation with lots of evidence. Still didn't get downvoted though.
but as of now there’s is zero physical evidence that it actually exists.
There’s extensive evidence of it’s existence. We just don’t know much about its nature.
Yeh, that’s how the scientific method works.
Observations don’t support a model, or a model doesn’t support observations.
Think of a reason why.
Test that hypothesis.
Repeat until you think it’s correct. Hopefully other people agree with you.
People are also working on modifying General Relativity and Newtonian Dynamics to try and fix the model, while other people are working on observing dark matter directly (instead of it’s effects) youtu.be/3o8kaCUm2V8
We are in the “testing hypothesis” stage. And have been for 50ish years
MORE evidence AGAINST dark matter? | What does the GAIA data actually show?
Jeredin“Repeat until you think it’s correct. Hopefully other people agree with you.”
Dark Energy has entered the chat.
For those with time to spare: study all you can about neutron stars (including magnetars and quark stars), then go back to “black holes” (especially their event horizons and beyond) and there’s a good chance you’ll feel like a lot of aspects in BH theories are mythologies written in math - all of it entertaining, nonetheless.
For those who seek extra credit, study zero-point energy before reflecting on cosmic voids, galaxy filaments, galaxies, gravitationally bound celestial systems, quantum chromodynamics and neutrinos. Then, ponder the relativity between neutron stars, zero-point energy and hadron quark sea.
Do we live in a giant void? That could solve the puzzle of the universe's expansion, research suggests - lemm.ee
Since I’ve started studying cosmology as a non-professional, I’ve found myself rather convinced that there’s so much dark matter but with a little “d” - since JWST has started giving us incredible data we’ve been finding more and more dense regions of dust, ice and gas where we’ve never thought, or previously seen before - but not new Dark Matter particles, regardless of claims of their influences. To be clear, both models should be studied and MOND continues to develop, however slowly it might be. As for those who’ve been keeping score between MOND vs DM (with a big “D”) many have pointed to the recent wide binary [https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10995] as “proof” that MOND is falsified. I honestly believe space is so much more nuanced than we’ve observed so far and future discoveries will certainly reveal as much. At any rate, I’d like to link Stacy McGaugh’s [https://tritonstation.com/2023/11/23/a-post-in-which-some-value-judgements-are-made-about-the-situation-with-wide-binaries/] recent entry into the debate for consideration. Edit: Found this Youtube video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBAv7rytktU&t=1s] that does a good job explaining the basics of this paper. Here’s a direct link to their paper [https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/527/3/4388/7337338?login=false] (also found in the phys.org [http://phys.org]). And a link to a post I’ve already made about Prof Kroupa [https://lemm.ee/post/3739103] - a large proponent for MOND. There’s a link for another post I made for Prof Stacy McGaugh there too; another great source for those interested.
Yeah, it’s legitimate science being done, but some people treat it as sacred and would fight you to no end because they say Dark Matter is some certainty, rather than approaching it with the proper scientific skepticism or with a statistical outlook.
For the most part believers in Dark Matter are cool, but a vocal minority practically worship it as the only possible truth.
The certainty is that there is something there, we just don’t know what it is. The name “dark” anything is irrelevant.
If a new hypothetical model showed that either some far off unobserved mass(es) or the currently observable mass can have the gravitational effects that were previously explained by dark matter, or any other far off idea about the nature of gravity at large scale: then there would be evidence there is nothing there. Currently there is no evidence that something is there, just that there are forces and motions that are not understood.
“just that there are forces and motions that are not understood.” - aka, there’s “something” there… Doesn’t have to be a physical something.
You’re intentionally misunderstanding or misinterpreting just to try and win points on the Internet.
No, again, there doesn’t have to be something else there. What we already know is there and around it could potentially explain it. There is not any definitive proof that something else needs to be there at all.
Okay I see what you mean, the meaning of your words missed me the first time, sorry. You’re saying something is happening, not necessarily that something else exists to cause it.
I mean, they are working on adjusting Newtonian dynamics for the situations where gravity between objects is low. This would fix the model for the strange galaxy spin and where 2 stars orbit eachother.
The issue with this is there are too many unknowns as we have a (relatively) fixed point of perspective. But statistical analysis is working on reducing the impact of those unknowns, and there is likely a paper published in the next few months regarding this.
Then, I guess it’s a matter of understanding why this applies. And maybe it applies because of dark matter, and it all wraps back round to an undiscovered thing.
Or, perhaps Newtonian dynamics isn’t complete but has been accurate enough to withstand all our testing (like taking 9.8 as the value of G on earth, even though it varies across the globe, and the moon/sun/planets also have a miniscule impact. For everything we do on earth, 9.8 is accurate enough)
Dark matter still has strong scientific support, although still undiscovered.
Modifying Newtonian dynamics has so far been disproven.
Both are worthy of pursuing
Modified gravity theories are a well explored alternative to dark matter, but they aren’t popular for the simple reason that dark matter fits the observational data far, far better. Because currently there is evidence that something is there, extensive evidence.
The attempts to measure dark matter directly have gotten incredibly sensitive and still haven’t found anything.
What? No.
dark matter is not a theory
Multiple experiments to detect dark matter directly here on earth have been constructed. They expected a handful of detections a year given the estimates of local dark matter densities. Those experiments have not yielded any detections. This sets very restrictive limits on candidates for particle like dark matter.
I’m fully aware of astronomical observations that suggest the need for dark matter. That’s not what I was referring to.
So far, astronomical observations are all we have, the lack of terrestrial observations have only been able to elliminate candidate particles, not measure them.
RanvierInteresting tidbit for you. You’d think if it was a math model not working properly that could be explained away with adjustments to the model that we’d be wrong looking at all galaxies. And yet there are galaxies out there that appear to be missing dark matter!
…nasa.gov/…/mystery-of-galaxys-missing-dark-matte…
space.com/galaxy-no-dark-matter-cosmic-puzzle
It doesn’t solve the problem but, it adds to the intrigue I think.
Mystery of Galaxy's Missing Dark Matter Deepens - NASA Science
When astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope uncovered an oddball galaxy that looked like it didn’t have much dark matter, some thought the finding was hard to believe and looked for a simpler explanation. Dark matter, after all, is the invisible glue that makes up the bulk of the universe’s matter. All galaxies appear to […]
All of physics is a "math model". One we attempt to falsify. And when a scientist does prove some part of the model wrong, the community leaps up in celebration and gets to working on the fix or the next.
Dark matter started as exactly a catchall designed to make the model work properly. We started with a very good model, but when observing extreme phenomenon (in this case the orbits of stars of entire galaxies), the model didn't fit. So either there was something we couldn't see to explain the difference ("dark" matter), or else the model was wrong and needed modification.
There's also multiple competing theories for what that dark matter is, exactly. Everything from countless tiny primordial black holes to bizarre, lightyear-sized standing waves in a quantum field. But the best-fitting theories that make the most sense and contradict the fewest observations & models seem to prefer there be some kind of actual particle that interacts just fine with gravity, but very poorly or not at all with electromagnetism. And since we rely on electromagnetism for nearly all of our particle physics experiments that makes whatever this particle is VERY elusive.
Worth observing that once, a huge amount of energy produced by stars was an example of a dark energy. Until we figured out how to detect neutrinos. Then it wasn't dark anymore.
In short, you're exactly right. It's a catch-all to make the math model work properly. And that's not actually a problem.
My personal dark matter theory is that 80% of all stars are surrounded by Dyson Spheres.
Well that’s a fun hypothesis that should be falsifiable. Why not write a paper with some maths predictions? That is a pretty extraordinary claim, but definitely fascinating.
I just read up on it a bit, and there’s multiple things disproving my theory:
- to reconcile our models with our observations, dark matter would have to be primordial, i.e. created shortly after the big bang.
- to explain the movements we see, dark matter must be mostly concentrated in a ring far outside of a galaxy. Dyson spheres would probably be concentrated in clusters spreading from the center of a civilization.
- Dyson spheres would radiate heat we can detect with infrared telescopes, unless you hand-wave it with “aliens found tech that breaks thermodynamics” and at that point it’s the same as saying it’s magic.
Respect looking into it further. If you’re into to this sort of stuff, you might like YouTube channel Isaac Arthur.
I wish more people were like you on the internet
Other way around, the math model worked fine without dark matter, and it was experimental observation that revealed DM. And yes, the term dark matter is a catch all by design because we don’t have a single theory on it yet.
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.
I know that it is not a simple scale thing here. So it might be something else. My bet is that is has something to do with angular momentum,
And how does this fit the data?
I’m no astrophysicist - I just design computer chips. But this issue of “We need dark matter” came up with rotating galaxies, didn’t it? So I’d look into that direction if there is a potential connection. Classic bug hunting technique.
So have you actually looked into the data at all?
Sounds like the retired engineer that has a theory cliché.
Yeah, basically.
I wonder why lay people find adding a new form of particle to the stable to be so much more intuitively objectionable than hacking into our theory of gravity to make it align with observations.
Modifying the theory of gravity to fit the data might be useful even if it’s just for modelling purposes. But it doesn’t make a theory for sure.
I am also an (non retired) engineer, but alas I have no theory of my own :)))
Oh it’s definitely useful, that’s what MOND theories are. If we didn’t do it, we wouldn’t now why it’s less likely than dark matter.
No, I’m just wondering about the reasoning for something that has not been observed except for it’s gravity effects. I mean, physics has loads of incomplete models, so for me, just another incomplete model looks more likely than some phantom particles that nobody can explain.
That reasoning is public information; all of the data that led these conclusions has been published. I would recommend you have enough respect for scientists to actually read some of it before writing it all off out of hand.
Also, we can explain dark matter, in fact we have multiple explanations. What we don’t have is a way to determine which is right yet.
That reasoning is public information; all of the data that led these conclusions has been published. I would recommend you have enough respect for scientists to actually read some of it before writing it all off out of hand.
The problem is that most writing on that topic is incomprehensible even for me. And I’m not even part of the non-science crowd - my specialization is just elsewhere.