Comments
couldentcareless t1_iwwjjlt wrote
Prove dark matter exists before blaming anything on it .......
paulfromatlanta t1_iwwlb91 wrote
I'm confused. Are photons matter? I thought they were energy.
LastSprinkles t1_iwwlev0 wrote
Now we have dark light as well?
JohnMayerismydad t1_iwwn58f wrote
I thought energy was matter
[deleted] t1_iwwnepr wrote
[removed]
tampora701 t1_iwwpcqe wrote
Does it matter? I don't have the energy.
Dante2005 t1_iwwqhjf wrote
"Dark" was always the word for "unknown" or "unproven" so you are not wrong entirely.
If you can see that something affects another thing, but you cant see how exactly or why...call it dark and wait for more data.
Science can only work with the data it has.
It is not trying to be obscure, there are just something's that there are no answers too quite yet.
But data can be extrapolated, like how oddly the universe is speeding up in its expansion.
We will get there.
EDIT: I just saw the sub reddit that I am on. if you need me to delete this comment I fully understand.
Grogosh t1_iwwqpfa wrote
At this point its the fairies of the astrophysics world.
[deleted] t1_iwwquhh wrote
[deleted]
blade944 t1_iwwqvki wrote
Very true. They found that galaxies didn't behave as they should based on current understanding of physics. So instead of looking at a possible broken model they imagined dark matter and energy to explain it all. So they've been desperately looking for any evidence whatsoever to support the idea but have found none. Yet they still cling to their models and ostricize any and all that question general and special relativity.
[deleted] t1_iwws7d0 wrote
[deleted]
Marchello_E t1_iwwsc3f wrote
Keyword: "may"
>Researchers are already planning to test this prediction.
Also
>The theory* of dark photons assumes...
They probably mean "hypothesis".
couldentcareless t1_iwwswff wrote
Thats amazing im stealing it!
jl_theprofessor t1_iwwtcu5 wrote
Equivalent to superstrings?
timberwolf0122 t1_iwwtdoi wrote
Take that people who thought my dark light bulb was a stupid idea!
rydan t1_iwwteio wrote
I was told in college not to mention MOND or tell anyone that our professor mentioned it.
cj_cusack t1_iwwtlxa wrote
It can only be detected by cosmic Bob Marley posters.
aShittierShitTier4u t1_iwwuazr wrote
I know how to make a photon by energizing an electron up to a higher valence, then it makes a photon when it goes back down to the normal valence. But I don't know how to make a dark photon. How can I make a dark photon? Do I need a quasar? How about a particle accelerator? I would like to have my own atom smasher. You never know when it might come in handy.
[deleted] t1_iwwur1d wrote
[removed]
answeryboi t1_iwx05dn wrote
Is all heating done via electromagnetic radiation?
TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_iwx1skv wrote
Is it controversial to say dark matter is an unknown for science?
TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_iwx2479 wrote
In my particular misunderstanding, yes.
tinny66666 t1_iwx2y2x wrote
We have some observations that show galaxies with and a few without companion dark matter. It has momentum and interacts with gravity. The Bullet Cluster is considered to provide direct evidence of dark matter, and none of the MOND theories to date can explain these types of observations.
Edit: I think a lot of people mix up dark energy and dark matter in this regard. Dark energy amounts to a fudge factor to make the maths work, but we know a lot more about dark matter. It really does appear to exist, but because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field we can't see it directly.
WrongAspects t1_iwx2yqv wrote
MOND was created to explain the spin rate of galaxies. It fails to explain all other observed effects of dark matter and has been by and large put in a shelf as an incomplete and possibly foolish theory.
[deleted] t1_iwx4myu wrote
[removed]
Hanflander t1_iwx5sqj wrote
“Photons have mass? I didn’t know they were Catholic!“
cinemanja t1_iwx75xb wrote
I’m losing track of all the different things we can’t possibly observe or understand in any way.
makingthegreatest t1_iwx7q6y wrote
Everything is unknown to an extent. Dark matter however has been known to humans for decades (nearly century) but there are unknowns to it (:
andy_crypto t1_iwx8nhs wrote
I’m waiting for the black wafer, so dense it will swallow you instead of swallowing it.
Bakkster t1_iwx941i wrote
>"Dark" was always the word for "unknown" or "unproven" so you are not wrong entirely.
I thought it was more specifically dark as in didn't absorb reflect or emit light or other reflective radiation, unlike cosmic dust and stars. We just see the gravitational lensing as if it were a dense cloud of dust, but no dust.
Dante2005 t1_iwx9qbj wrote
I hear you, but dark in that form that you mentioned was about black holes, and in this you were 100% correct.
TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_iwx9ysp wrote
Sure, but there are alternate theories that are compatible with experiments into the modern day.
We don't know for sure that dark matter is a thing because we don't know for sure our model is relevant in that area.
SithLordAJ t1_iwxaffr wrote
For your notes, here's the concise list of everything we dont understand:
Life, the Universe, and Everything.
SithLordAJ t1_iwxb418 wrote
They are generally not considered matter. They have no rest mass, but do have momentum.
Im not familiar with this dark matter theory, but the idea of dark matter is that something functions like it has mass that cant be seen. I would surmise that there's more of a trick to it than "it's a photon that cant be absorbed".
couldentcareless t1_iwxb8ur wrote
Something is happening you can't explain but you have an idea nothing provable. All you need now is to ask me for money and you could run for public office
urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iwxbkew wrote
A ravishing ever-new place called the Underverse... the promised land - a constellation of dark new worlds.
tornpentacle t1_iwxbpt7 wrote
No but matter is energy. Squares and rectangles situation
stormrockox t1_iwxfxkj wrote
This is false. They actually discovered a huge and massive object is causing the heating: your mother
[deleted] t1_iwxh8fs wrote
[removed]
DeadNeko t1_iwxhg1t wrote
They can explain it, they can explain it mathematically and theoretically they've designed experiments based on models and have some observational evidence your just to stupid to understand the science
sciguy52 t1_iwxi44e wrote
They are talking about dark photons. Hypothetical photons that do not act like known observable photons. Might interact with dark matter. Or possibly regular matter as they propose here.
sciguy52 t1_iwxi8bk wrote
Flip side of the same coin. Energy can be made into matter, and matter can be made into energy based on E=mc2
GabiNaali t1_iwxicoq wrote
Light and darkness. Now we just have to find the Traveler.
pikabuddy11 t1_iwxkkv1 wrote
They predict the dark photons to have mass which makes sense since they say the dark photons change into normal photons. This like how neutrinos have to have mass to be able to change flavors. But does that imply this photon has mass which means it’s not a photon?? The whole point is they’re massless and can move at c right?
Tacotuesday8 t1_iwxkp6m wrote
Dark photon was my nickname in college.
Lore_Keeper_Ronan t1_iwxl488 wrote
There's a weird triangle thing found near the dark side of the moon. Best we not touch Nezerec's Grave.
L7Death t1_iwxnk19 wrote
That's not pure science. That's a lot of math.
The funny thing about math is that various forms can be remarkably similar. The same math can explain completely different things. The equations for gravitational lensing are equivalent to basic refraction, for instance. Perhaps there's no gravitational lensing. Perhaps it's just particles acting as a lense, for instance. Though, that's really besides the point. The point is the same math can describe very different physical phenomenon.
RelMOND is basically as good as LCDM in many ways. Very different approaches with similar results in many cases.
We know we have a dark gravity problem. Gravity is just not very well understood across vast (cosmic to subatomic) scales.
The interesting bit is that by 'fixing gravity' both dark matter and dark energy may become entirely unneeded, or at least significantly reduced in magnitude. That's appealing as it's simpler, ya know, ol occums razor.
Yet our best models (regardless) still fail too frequently. So we still haven't got it right.
kjb_linux t1_iwxpw0v wrote
Flash Dark. Would be amazing.
heard_enough_crap t1_iwxt88t wrote
I think Dark Matter is right up there with the cosmological constant and the aether until someone proves it actually exists.
[deleted] t1_iwxt8kp wrote
[removed]
EvadingBan42 t1_iwxtqba wrote
If there are “dark photons, matter, and energy” then we are inching ever closer to a mirror universe existing alongside our own that is completely invisible to the naked eye.
Perhaps this is the answer to the Fermi paradox, we can’t see any aliens because our technology has not advanced sufficiently to peer across this veil. Imagine donning dark energy glasses and seeing an entire galaxy full of dark matter engines and ships blasting across space totally unaffected by normal matter or physics.
mouse1093 t1_iwxtr68 wrote
No, not controversial at all. Dark matter is one prevailing theory that explains a number of odd phenomenon and observations that standard cosmology gets wrong. Things like the spin rate of galaxies is an example. There may be other explanations that fix this problem (say perhaps super gravity) but none have been any more confirmed that the others.
Dark matter is also unknown in the sense that other than prescription of what it should be, we don't what it actually is. None of our current particles fit the bill and the theoretical particles we've thought could work haven't shown themselves in any tests to make them.
mouse1093 t1_iwxue6t wrote
We've known for a long time that either GR and/or QM must be wrong since they don't mesh with each other as they currently stand
[deleted] t1_iwxvop0 wrote
You should rest, and stay there, unless acted upon
WeLLrightyOH t1_iwxwrco wrote
Photons are wave/particles. They are not ordinary matter (most think of ordinary matter as items made up of atomic nuclei). Photons have zero mass as they do not interact with the Higgs field. Photons do have energy which is inversely related to it’s wavelength. Most visible light is about 2 eV. Photons aren’t energy per se, but they do have energy.
Senior_Engineer t1_iwxzfgj wrote
I’m not sure we understand nothing either
FunQuit t1_iwy1hlp wrote
We should build a huge computer to answer this
Scared-Conflict-653 t1_iwy1qdz wrote
This might help: we know nothing. I mean we know some things and know we know that we don't know everything but really, we know nothing.
stouset t1_iwy2go0 wrote
Sort of.
We have a lot of data that requires something like dark matter to exist. There’s a bunch of matter, and it moves in a way that requires way more matter than what we can see. We can detect gravitational effects pretty much everywhere that greatly exceed what we’d expect from the matter we detect. We can detect this so well that we have intergalactic maps of where this extra matter must be.
We just… don’t know what it is. We’ve basically ruled out all the stuff that we know about. And problematically, everything at small scales like what we deal with in the solar system seems within what we’d expect with normal matter. But when we look farther out, stuff acts like there’s way more gravity than there otherwise should be.
DeadNeko t1_iwy32jp wrote
There is no such thing as "pure science". All scientific theories require so framework by which to understand them. Saying the framework is math isnt lesser.
Sure but you can rule certain explanations through experiments designed to spot the differences this is well known in science. And scientists design experiments all the time to do this.
Occums razor isnt a rule you must follow. In science the best theory is the one that makes the most testable hypothesises.
No one in science thinks the models are right they simply think they are most correct ones we have. Which is true if there's a flaw science will inevitably course correct, and that's already been happening with multiple physics theories losing popularity and some other ideas coming back. The issue is people assuming one idea is right and more worthy of research without any understanding of them.
The simpler answer may seem correct but the universe is under no obligation to be simple, or even be intuitive to us at all.
Robiwan05 t1_iwy37l1 wrote
I'll save you all the trouble, it's: 42.
Skullmaggot t1_iwy3dsx wrote
Just let me know when I can go fight the Ing for planet Aether.
jawshoeaw t1_iwy3qtj wrote
I … I know it sounds like a joke but …yes??
jawshoeaw t1_iwy3w9q wrote
Yeah it turns out nothing is filled up with all sorts of things buzzing around . Including now dark light and virtual particles. Hey , are we getting punked by physicists? It’s getting harder to tell
jawshoeaw t1_iwy3ze9 wrote
Matter cannot go the speed of light , so no. But if they smack into you they have momentum . Hence lightsails
Nick0013 t1_iwy510p wrote
Given all of our observations on gravity and relativity, this (to me) feels even less plausible than the idea that there’s mass in the universe that we don’t yet have detection methods for.
zombie32killah t1_iwy65y6 wrote
Thankfully that includes Bob Marley posters.
Nuclearfuzzbomber t1_iwy6s7v wrote
There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know.
KnuckleSniffer t1_iwy78qq wrote
"All models are wrong, some models are useful."
FwibbFwibb t1_iwy8hbn wrote
> I still get the sense it's all about a failed model and nothing specifically special other than incomplete theorems.
It explains quite a bit of observations, some of which were predicted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence
[deleted] t1_iwy8l2r wrote
[removed]
FwibbFwibb t1_iwy8pr8 wrote
No, you can heat things up through gravity. How do you think stars heat up gas to the point of fusion?
darkwing42 t1_iwy8wqc wrote
Yes, but what is the question?
poppinchips t1_iwy9apf wrote
I believe dark matter just doesn't respond to the electromagnetic field. It doesn't absorb, reflect or emit electromag radiation. Beyond that is anyone's guess.
SimoneNonvelodico t1_iwybfru wrote
Yeah but we can't call them dark energy because we already have that and it's a different thing.
SimoneNonvelodico t1_iwyblfi wrote
Honestly "dark photons" makes zero sense. If they're photons they're excitations of the EM quantum field, if they're of some other field they're just a different particle. I guess it could mean they're from a massless field, like photons and unlike regular dark matter (whatever that is).
[deleted] t1_iwycd4j wrote
[removed]
therealdivs1210 t1_iwyebvj wrote
QFT is basically aether, though…
echoAwooo t1_iwyediu wrote
A.. black... light ?
echoAwooo t1_iwyegq5 wrote
Nope. We aren't even sure it's there, we're just pretty sure.
TrippyReality t1_iwyinc2 wrote
By looking at galaxy cluster formation and the formation of the universe, matter should be even throughout, but yet the cosmic microwave background shows web-like features. The inner edges of the galaxy should move faster since there is more mass in the middle compared to the outer edge of galaxies, but it moves the same. Since we don’t have a theory of gravity or graviton particle to explain it, mathematical models can only predict the existence of something that we can’t observe.
SouthEasternGuy t1_iwyko07 wrote
Dark matter is basically the name specifically for the stuff that is having gravitational effects on things but that they can’t attribute to a proper source. It happens A LOT so they just call it dark matter.
It’s not controversial by any means, it’s specifically an unknown
gaussianCopulator t1_iwymc2i wrote
It's a dark question
HannsGruber t1_iwynn4k wrote
My high-dea hypothesis is dark matter is the gravitational signature of the true 4D structure of the universe
mistr_k t1_iwyqhgc wrote
From my understanding of it, Dark Energy isn't really related to Dark Matter in that way. Dark Energy is something that is causing the universe to accelerate and expand space. It's dark in that we don't understand what kind of energy it is because we can only observe what it does at this point.
Feisty-Summer9331 t1_iwyqxvk wrote
Dark photon shall now be my hand name.
[deleted] t1_iwyrb7n wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_iwyreed wrote
[removed]
MiddleBodyInjury t1_iwysye9 wrote
r/unexpecteddestiny
N8CCRG t1_iwyymll wrote
If you're arguing for a modified theory of gravity, lots of people have tried that, and lots of various measurements have set forth extremely good evidence that modified theories of gravity can't fix the problems. Meanwhile dark matter can.
[deleted] t1_iwyzh3k wrote
[deleted]
carbonqubit t1_iwyzp4f wrote
A dark photon's mass would be generated from the Higgs or Stueckelberg mechanism and be weakly coupled to electrically charged particles through kinetic mixing with a photon.
Dark photons could also be used to explain the difference between the measured and calculated anomalous magnetic moment of the muon that was first detected in 1959 at CERN.
forsale90 t1_iwz2isa wrote
There is no one dark matter theory. Some particles that could be part of it would couple to photons, like Axions.
What we talk of most of the time, cold dark matter or WIMPs don't couple to photons though.
typicalspecial t1_iwz89py wrote
I wouldn't discount modified gravity entirely. Of course dark matter can fix it, because dark matter is defined as whatever will fix it.
N8CCRG t1_iwzb3yk wrote
Not true. Dark matter is just defined as matter that we can't see but otherwise behaves like matter, and that fixes all of the various measurements. Meanwhile, modified gravity doesn't. You can make a modification that tries to explain one measurement, but then it fails to fix a separate measurement, and often make problems worse, like the proverbial floorboard that gets hammered down on one end and the other end pops back up.
And that's not my opinion, that's what the actual publications routinely find.
TrippyReality t1_iwzgssm wrote
Reality could be a simulation like the matrix because even at the quantum level, there is no materialism. Everything is all waves of probability, even matter at the quantum level. Our perception could all be a projection of a 3dimensional virtual world.
[deleted] t1_ix038v1 wrote
[removed]
pretendperson t1_ix07ben wrote
In putin's russia, black wafer swallows YOU
williemctell t1_ix083bh wrote
No, u/Bakkster is absolutely correct and this has ~nothing to do with black holes. Dark matter is “dark” because it doesn’t interact electromagnetically.
Publius82 t1_ix0j99i wrote
A hypothesis can be tested. It's a notion.
typicalspecial t1_ix0lyt7 wrote
It behaves like matter in that it influences gravity, and that's about it. Proposed particles get ruled out just as modifications do. Ruling out a modification doesn't invalidate all possible models; ruling out proposed dark matter particles doesn't invalidate dark matter being a particle. We can't definitively say it's matter until we can verify its interaction with anything.
N8CCRG t1_ix0oxql wrote
That's what defines matter: it interacts via gravity. Other interactions are different for every other type of particle we know about. Some particles interact through some mechanisms and others don't, but they all interact through gravity.
Meanwhile, modifcations have been blanket ruled out, not individually. Dark matter has been measured in so many different ways, we have been able to say that no modified theory of gravity could explain all of those measurements.
[deleted] t1_ix0q4uh wrote
[removed]
gibfeetplease t1_ix0rib9 wrote
Hahaha what? MOND (which is what you’re describing) was heavily looked into, it’s just that it doesn’t seem to work well.
Physicists aren’t some dark cabal trying to cling to theories of the past, everyone wants to find something new. Taking a human view of things, if MOND was a good approach people wouldn’t jump on it, the chance of blowing apart GR and writing your name in history?
[deleted] t1_ix0rq8v wrote
[removed]
gibfeetplease t1_ix0s26h wrote
Good thought, and actually radiation density is a major factor in cosmological models! Sadly it’s nowhere near sufficient to explain the effects observed by dark matter, as well as a few other properties it’s been deduced to have.
L7Death t1_ix20mq0 wrote
Coocoo to you
Ishea t1_ixchtb7 wrote
The awnser you seek is 42.
SithLordAJ t1_ixclglx wrote
Let me jot that down real quick...
AutoModerator t1_iwwj1ih wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.