Well, it's not quite like that, because the mathematical theories are so complex that it's as though we always had 2 + 4 + x = 5 + y, where x and y are admittedly unknown variables because we always knew we couldn't count the apples and oranges perfectly in the first place.
Think back to the earth-centric view of the universe that prevailed until the 1500s (or so? I can't remember the exact dates). We could explain a lot of things by saying the sun, moon, planets, and stars orbited around the earth, but as we got better at other observations we realized we couldn't explain everything that way. So, we had to completely rethink the "equation" and put the sun at the center of our solar system and have the earth both rotate on its axis and orbit the sun. Everything we already observed still made sense, and other things made even more sense. So, we were missing part of the equation previously. Dark matter is a possible explanation that makes more modern observations make more sense.
It's possible that someday we'll realize we were wrong about dark matter and that there are other theories out there, but we don't have a better one at the moment.
So taking this example though, the problem with the earth-centric view of the solar system was that the foundational principle was wrong. We created all this "bad math" just so we could keep the earth at the center and then finally, it was like, "Okay, we're going to have to go back to step one: something else might be at the center." So my question is still sort of, is "dark matter" really a thing, or is it what we're using so we can (analogously) keep the earth at the center. I'm obviously not thinking about this as a scientist, much less a physicist. I know this is a really very unsophisticated question, but why are scientists so wedded to this idea of dark X? It seems like we've been in this situation before in terms of the history of science - where our theories break down, and we always start by trying to create an even more complex theory with some additional X entity that can reconcile it. And then 100 or 1000 years later it's like, "Oooookaaaaay, we got the fucking first step wrong."
This isn't devil's advocate, I'm just keeping the conversation going because it's interesting to me. So I guess I would say my question is, is anyone out there positing that the actual central foundational principles of this are wrong, and what do they suggest is the alternative? That would interest me. What's on the other side of this debate?
The new equations do just that. They say, nope no more dark stuff. Here's some new math.
So let me see if I can condense these various articles to a couple of simple points:
-Big Bang Theory equations don't work at points of singularity, i.e. beginning of universe. Requires something called dark matter/energy/mass and still mathematically doesn't work at beginning. Scientists also can't explain the 'before the beginning' with any math.
-New theories have suggested Big Bounce with endless loop where it universe expands and collapses on itself. Math still can't explain the point of singularity and requires dark matter/energy/mass to work. Also opens thoughts to alternative universes.
-Newer theories say instead of the equations describing lines that cross each other into points of singularity (i.e. beginnings and ends of the universe or Big Bounce Theory), the equations now describes lines that never cross each other and go on forever and ever (no beginning, no end). There is no dark stuff, but rather a cosomological constant term and a radiation constant term are in the equation. There is also something called a graviton, a gravity particle that controls gravity and has no mass. This means that all of the empty space between other particles be filled with quantum fluid. So maybe the scientists, including Newton were right about the concept of Aether.
Post by anastasia517 on Aug 21, 2015 12:43:09 GMT -5
THIS IS WHY I COULDN'T BE AN ASTRONOMER. I like learning about astronomy. Planets and moons were something I was obsessed with as a kid. The actual math and science is too hard for me though. Now I'm just staring at this trying to make sense of the words.
So let me see if I can condense these various articles to a couple of simple points:
-Big Bang Theory equations don't work at points of singularity, i.e. beginning of universe. Requires something called dark matter/energy/mass and still mathematically doesn't work at beginning. Scientists also can't explain the 'before the beginning' with any math.
-New theories have suggested Big Bounce with endless loop where it universe expands and collapses on itself. Math still can't explain the point of singularity and requires dark matter/energy/mass to work. Also opens thoughts to alternative universes.
-Newer theories say instead of the equations describing lines that cross each other into points of singularity (i.e. beginnings and ends of the universe or Big Bounce Theory), the equations now describes lines that never cross each other and go on forever and ever (no beginning, no end). There is no dark stuff, but rather a cosomological constant term and a radiation constant term are in the equation. There is also something called a graviton, a gravity particle that controls gravity and has no mass. This means that all of the empty space between other particles be filled with quantum fluid. So maybe the scientists, including Newton were right about the concept of Aether.
Cool! Do you have a background in physics?
Does string theory fit into one of these bullet points? I've heard it is connected to possible alternative universes (thanks Anathem and Stephenson) so maybe the second bullet point?
Is the graviton particle also called the chameleon particle? Or am I mixing up the Quantum Field people with the Dark Fruit people?
So let me see if I can condense these various articles to a couple of simple points:
-Big Bang Theory equations don't work at points of singularity, i.e. beginning of universe. Requires something called dark matter/energy/mass and still mathematically doesn't work at beginning. Scientists also can't explain the 'before the beginning' with any math.
-New theories have suggested Big Bounce with endless loop where it universe expands and collapses on itself. Math still can't explain the point of singularity and requires dark matter/energy/mass to work. Also opens thoughts to alternative universes.
-Newer theories say instead of the equations describing lines that cross each other into points of singularity (i.e. beginnings and ends of the universe or Big Bounce Theory), the equations now describes lines that never cross each other and go on forever and ever (no beginning, no end). There is no dark stuff, but rather a cosomological constant term and a radiation constant term are in the equation. There is also something called a graviton, a gravity particle that controls gravity and has no mass. This means that all of the empty space between other particles be filled with quantum fluid. So maybe the scientists, including Newton were right about the concept of Aether.
Cool! Do you have a background in physics?
Does string theory fit into one of these bullet points? I've heard it is connected to possible alternative universes (thanks Anathem and Stephenson) so maybe the second bullet point?
Is the graviton particle also called the chameleon particle? Or am I mixing up the Quantum Field people with the Dark Fruit people?
I've taken enough math, chemistry, thermodynamics, mass transfer, and physics classes that I have a decent foundation to understand the complex terms and translate them into less complex ideas. My degree is in Chemical Engineering though.
I need to brush up on all the stuff you mention if you want more detail than what I can recall. String theory is more of a framework for quantum physics. So the new gravitons would be described as a 1 dimensional 'string', rather than a discrete particle. The article only describes them as a particle, so I don't know the newest theory and math really describe gravitons - as strings or as particles. I only vaguely remember the chameleon particle being related to the concept of dark energy, so if the newest theory is right, there is no chameleon particle because there is no dark stuff. It can all be described by new equations and the graviton particle. The article didn't discuss that.
Not in physics, astronomy, or cosmology, but I'll take a shot.
One of the jobs of science is to explain the why and how of the stuff we observe. One way science does this is to create models (aka theories*). Scientists generally express these models in math. The cool thing is that the models not only explains what we see, they also make some predictions. If you do this, you should find this. And models need to be consistent with each other. Most of our current models work pretty well to explain what we observe and have made some pretty cool predictions that have been confirmed. But some models have gaps, or are inconsistent with each other. Areas where predictions break down, observations that don't quite make sense.
For example, if (using the equations that come from the currently accepted model) you measure the trajectory of a star (which is being pulled by the gravity of other stars) and it should be x, but it's not, it's y. Now the pull gravity is based on two things, mass and distance and we're pretty good at measuring distances. So there must be an issue with the mass. Why does it do this? Nobody has come up with a great way to adjust the equations or the entire model, and the current simplest way to explain these inconsistencies is that there must be some extra mass that we just can't observe and call it "dark mass". The really weird thing is that MOST OF THE UNIVERSE is dark matter and dark energy. So a lot of researchers (like the guy in this article) are working on taking measurements, tweaking equations, or developing new models to try to explain this.
*In science, the word theory means something different than in every day parlance. Most people take theory to mean "a guess" or "an uncertain idea". In science, a theory is a very robust explanation for a phenomenon that is supported by many many many years of scientific research and evidence. A theory not only provides an explanation, but it has made predictions which turn out to be true. And there is no "proving" a theory or graduating it into a law. Theories are explanations of how and why. Laws are descriptions of what. They both require rigorous testing and mountains of evidence, but they answer different types of scientific questions.
So dark energy, dark matter, and dark mass (which are all separate things, right) are things that we can't see, but that must exist in order for our equations to make sense?
I'm going to ask a kindergarten level question here: instead of hypothesizing an "invisible substance", why don't we just abandon the equation? Like, if I had hypothesized that 2 oranges and 4 applies would give me 5 pieces of fruit, and then I count them and realize they give me 6, I would not assume there was "dark fruit." I would assume my understanding of the value of either 2 or 4 was wrong.
From my bachelor's understanding of science, "dark mass/matter/energy" really is just a place holder and could turn out to be any number of things, including blowing up the whole theory and finding a new center of the universe. And there are probably plenty of scientists more inclined to believe that than the existence of "dark fruit". Of course any particular scientist is going to have spent his/her whole career down one particular rabbit hole and will probably be in favor of that one. But there are plenty down the "earth revolves around the sun" rabbit hole too.
I totally agree with the deaf/blind analogy and I wouldn't be surprised to find plenty of scientist who do also. But they're going to keep trying.
When I was a kid, we had no idea what killed the dinosaurs. By the time I was in college, the KT event was established science. This stuff really does keep changing all the time.
I just want to say that I think it's pretty bad ass that scientists are like "Yo - Einstein was wrong" (that's what they are saying, right?). That takes some real confidence. Can you imagine being that person in grad school and what the profs must have thought? It's kind of awesome.
This is pretty much why I never went for a graduate degree right here. You want me to come up with an original idea? About science? Insert nope octopus.