Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
Joel Send a noteboard - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
I just don't think it's the airtight proof of dark matter Dr. Carroll considers it, because I don't think dark matter's the only, or necessarily the simplest, possible explanation.
I don't see a reason to think the normal matter emitting the X-rays didn't collide with the galaxy through which it passed. It seems likely to be the highest energy (hence it emits X-rays instead of visible light) so it should logically penetrate farther than the other matter native to its cluster, particularly if it's also the central and therefore densest part of that cluster, which appears to be the case (unless of course dark matter is present, in which case that part is the densest).
I don't see a reason to think the normal matter emitting the X-rays didn't collide with the galaxy through which it passed. It seems likely to be the highest energy (hence it emits X-rays instead of visible light) so it should logically penetrate farther than the other matter native to its cluster, particularly if it's also the central and therefore densest part of that cluster, which appears to be the case (unless of course dark matter is present, in which case that part is the densest).
The reason to think that the hot gas emitting x-rays didn't collide with the cooler individual galaxies is that's what the evidence shows.
Perhaps I misunderstood then. I thought the proposal was that the Bullet Clusters dark matter passed through the other cluster without collision and was thus farther to the other side of it than the Bullet Clusters other matter, but that the x-ray emitting gases did collide because they were normal matter subject to electromagnetism (as evidenced by the fact they're emitting x-rays). The x-ray emitting gases were significant, as I understood it, because the gravitational lensing associated with the Bullet Cluster is NOT strongest where they are (despite the fact they appear to be the largest concentration of normal matter).
As for the lensing itself, that we're dealing with entire clusters means we're dealing with very large and very distant objects so it seems entirely possible that other intervening but non-visible normal matter may be conributing to the lensing in some but not all areas, which could both account for the apparent effect as measured (if an intervening source of gravity is acting on all the light) and/or distort the image (if the clusters and their surroundings are too large for all their light to be affected by the intervening gravity source(s)).
How coincidental that the combination of all of those miscellaneous factors just happened to create exactly the same effect that we would predict from dark matter.
Singly or in combination; both seem possible, meaning there are no less than three potential alternatives that don't require positing neutrinos are just one tiny part of a whole new class of matter.
The root of my problem is the first two sentences of Dr. Carrolls article:
That would be a phenomenal accomplishment if proven true, but I'm concerned the potential phenomenon has made us to eager to accept inconclusive proof, in which case it is just "telling a story". Finding direct experimental evidence of dark matter would be awesome, but sounds rather challenging since it's only affected by gravity.
The great accomplishment of late-twentieth-century cosmology was putting together a complete inventory of the universe. We can tell a story that fits all the known data, in which ordinary matter (every particle ever detected in any experiment) constitutes only about 5% of the energy of the universe, with 25% being dark matter and 70% being dark energy.
That would be a phenomenal accomplishment if proven true, but I'm concerned the potential phenomenon has made us to eager to accept inconclusive proof, in which case it is just "telling a story". Finding direct experimental evidence of dark matter would be awesome, but sounds rather challenging since it's only affected by gravity.
I really don't understand this perception that scientists are over-eager to "tell a story" that isn't well-supported by the evidence. One of the best ways for a scientist to contribute to the field and make a name for himself or herself is to disprove or supplant an existing theory, and every scientist knows this.
The second sentence is the reason for the perception in the first. For my part, I don't think anyone overeager to tell a story unsupported by the evidence, but think many overeager to tell a story that allows few if any tests but radically alters the scientific landscape, in the hopes tests will subsequently become possible and supporting evidence found. The problem with that is it encourages the idea that when such a test is found but the evidence is not the problem must be the test rather than the theory. I mentioned James Bockris down below; it was only when I looked up his name to cite for Texas A&Ms role in the cold fusion hoax that I found he's since claimed to be transmuting elements, but whether it's the Philosophers Stone or cold fusion, if you keep looking and looking for something of which you find not even a hint, rather than not looking hard enough, the reason may be that it's simply not there.
The sense that I'm getting is that you have a preconceived opinion about dark matter, and in order to hold on to that, you are willing both to interpret evidence in a highly selective manner and to believe yourself actually more qualified to analyze this issue than hundreds if not thousands of trained, educated, experienced scientists. Have you taken any classes or done any independent study in astrophysics, general relativity, cosmology, etc.? These topics require an understanding of gravitation, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, nuclear physics, optics, and that's just for starters.
The existence of dark matter is not currently a matter of scientific controversy, despite whatever impression the media gives in order to create better news stories. Skepticism is important, but skepticism in the face of evidence is not a virtue. On the off chance that dark matter doesn't exist, rest assured that people will figure that out.
The existence of dark matter is not currently a matter of scientific controversy, despite whatever impression the media gives in order to create better news stories. Skepticism is important, but skepticism in the face of evidence is not a virtue. On the off chance that dark matter doesn't exist, rest assured that people will figure that out.
I haven't taken any classes on those specific subjects rather than general physics, no, and acknowledge the large possibility I'm simply not well enough informed to know all the ways my objections have been addressed. However, my concern is that a lot of people who should know better are too invested in dark matter to look for explanations, in the abstract, rather than simply proof of the dark matter they KNOW is there. They have a word for that, but it isn't "science".
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Exciting video about the universe
28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM
- 1090 Views
I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect.
28/04/2011 10:34:21 PM
- 817 Views
We've just about ruled out the idea that dark matter is just non-luminous "ordinary" matter.
28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM
- 748 Views
I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM
- 680 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM
- 792 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM
- 748 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM
- 618 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM
- 653 Views
Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that.
04/05/2011 04:18:18 AM
- 757 Views
There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
07/05/2011 02:04:53 AM
- 828 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
09/05/2011 11:28:48 PM
- 673 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
14/05/2011 05:36:45 AM
- 617 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM
- 706 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
19/05/2011 04:55:21 AM
- 627 Views
Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.
24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM
- 704 Views
The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM
- 647 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM
- 854 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM
- 666 Views
Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind.
31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM
- 736 Views
Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM
- 986 Views
Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately.
14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM
- 989 Views
Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter:
29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM
- 681 Views
This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM
- 799 Views
Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue.
30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM
- 770 Views
That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM
- 763 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM
- 725 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM
- 901 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM
- 667 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM
- 949 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM
- 573 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM
- 913 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM
- 698 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM
- 981 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM
- 797 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM
- 1038 Views
Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible".
14/06/2011 03:38:12 AM
- 803 Views
Re: I still think... (apparently, there is a 100 character limit on subjects, and yours was 99)
28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM
- 997 Views
Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry.
29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM
- 696 Views
None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter.
29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM
- 662 Views
I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM
- 779 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM
- 613 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM
- 1130 Views
Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes.
04/05/2011 04:18:27 AM
- 657 Views
I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
07/05/2011 02:05:09 AM
- 849 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM
- 774 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/05/2011 05:36:24 AM
- 927 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
17/05/2011 02:10:03 AM
- 683 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
19/05/2011 04:33:06 AM
- 930 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 09:59:38 PM
- 677 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:19:43 PM
- 647 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
24/05/2011 11:33:58 PM
- 603 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
25/05/2011 12:55:36 AM
- 732 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
31/05/2011 09:16:24 AM
- 640 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
10/06/2011 12:09:13 AM
- 825 Views
Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should.
14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM
- 800 Views
Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at
29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM
- 634 Views
Potentially either, or a combination of the two.
30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM
- 699 Views
It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly
30/04/2011 04:58:03 PM
- 613 Views
My primary objection is that alternatives to dark matter seem to have been ruled out prematurely.
02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM
- 751 Views