Community Messageboard: Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. by Dreaded Anomaly

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM

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).

Yes, that's the explanation of the evidence. I'm not sure what that has do to with the objection you made.

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.

They seem possible because you have an overly-limited view of the evidence.

Also, neutrinos and whatever new particle(s) are found would not necessarily be in the same "class." They would be similar in that they wouldn't interact electromagnetically, but neutrinos are not the only particle for which that is true: see gluons, Z bosons. For that matter, there are also photons, which are carriers for the electromagnetic force; they mediate EM interactions, but do not have such interactions themselves, as they don't have any electric charge.

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.

But, in the case you describe, there would be other scientists just as eager to change the landscape in a different direction, by proving the first group wrong.

We have more than just hints that dark matter exists and is exotic. We know from the current evidence that direct detection of it will be hard to do, so the fact that we haven't seen any results yet isn't inconsistent or a warning sign. If we thought it was going to be easy and then didn't come up with anything, that would be a different story.

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".

But this concern is based on an incomplete understanding of the evidence (and what still sound a lot like impressions derived from news media sensationalism to me). The idea that some scientists get "too invested" may certainly be true in general, but that is not a valid reason to aspersions on the entire enterprise, because there are always going to be other scientists going in other directions, and in this specific case, the evidence simply isn't nearly as flimsy as you think it is.

Reply to message

Exciting video about the universe Camilla - 28/04/2011 10:14:55 AM 1090 Views

Cool, and true *NM* Stephen - 28/04/2011 11:46:29 AM 331 Views

I still think dark matter's just non-luminous matter without a convenient light source to reflect. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 28/04/2011 11:44:34 PM 748 Views

I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 29/04/2011 01:52:49 AM 680 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 02:56:32 AM 792 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:02:49 PM 748 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:35 PM 619 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:30 AM 653 Views

Re: I'm aware of the Bullet Cluster, though admittedly not much more than that. Dreaded Anomaly - 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.

Joel - 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.

Dreaded Anomaly - 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.

Joel - 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.

Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:40 AM 707 Views

Re: There's such a thing as knowing when you're licked, and I believe I am.

Joel - 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.

Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:32:27 PM 705 Views

The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 24/05/2011 10:34:04 PM 647 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 11:08:01 PM 855 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Joel - 25/05/2011 01:27:10 AM 667 Views

Re: The Pati-Salam model was the one I had in mind. Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:18 AM 736 Views

Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Joel - 10/06/2011 12:09:04 AM 986 Views

Re: Apologies for the delay; internet's been spotty and I've been busy lately. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:18 AM 989 Views

Also, re: lensing from ordinary matter: Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 05:18:47 AM 681 Views

This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Joel - 30/04/2011 05:25:04 PM 799 Views

Re: This seems like another example of what confuses the issue. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:40 PM 770 Views

That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:03 AM 763 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 04/05/2011 04:18:24 AM 725 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 07/05/2011 02:05:02 AM 901 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:29:36 PM 667 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 14/05/2011 05:35:56 AM 949 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 17/05/2011 02:09:55 AM 574 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 19/05/2011 02:47:25 AM 914 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 24/05/2011 09:46:30 PM 698 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 25/05/2011 12:20:10 AM 981 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 31/05/2011 09:16:22 AM 797 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Joel - 10/06/2011 12:04:06 AM 1038 Views

Re: That discussion seems to reduce to "as little new and exotic physics as possible". Dreaded Anomaly - 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) Tor - 28/04/2011 11:57:15 PM 997 Views

Seems to happen to me a lot; sorry. Joel - 29/04/2011 12:56:14 AM 696 Views

None of this reflects on the actual facts of dark matter. Dreaded Anomaly - 29/04/2011 01:32:52 AM 662 Views

I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 30/04/2011 04:30:28 PM 780 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 30/04/2011 08:56:44 PM 613 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:28:58 AM 1130 Views

Re: I concede my grasp (or grope) is a somewhat superficial laymans, yes. Dreaded Anomaly - 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. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 09/05/2011 11:32:17 PM 775 Views

Re: I don't object to changing my mind, but can take more convincing than I really should. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 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. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 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. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 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. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 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. Joel - 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. Dreaded Anomaly - 14/06/2011 03:38:05 AM 800 Views

Might help if you clarified where your skepticism is at Isaac - 29/04/2011 02:32:07 AM 634 Views

Potentially either, or a combination of the two. Joel - 30/04/2011 02:36:50 PM 699 Views

It's hard to discuss without knowing your objections a bit more clearly Isaac - 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. Joel - 02/05/2011 01:29:14 AM 752 Views

Well, they weren't, not really sure how else to put that Isaac - 10/05/2011 03:19:57 AM 788 Views

Alright then, objection withdrawn (cautious skepticism intact). Joel - 14/05/2011 05:34:17 AM 904 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="204474">
<quote id="204446">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).</quote>

Yes, that's the explanation of the evidence. I'm not sure what that has do to with the objection you made.

<quote id="204446">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.</quote>

They seem possible because you have an overly-limited view of the evidence.

Also, neutrinos and whatever new particle(s) are found would not necessarily be in the same "class." They would be similar in that they wouldn't interact electromagnetically, but neutrinos are not the only particle for which that is true: see gluons, Z bosons. For that matter, there are also photons, which are carriers for the electromagnetic force; they mediate EM interactions, but do not have such interactions themselves, as they don't have any electric charge.

<quote id="204446">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.</quote>

But, in the case you describe, there would be other scientists just as eager to change the landscape in a different direction, by proving the first group wrong.

We have more than just hints that dark matter exists and is exotic. We know from the current evidence that direct detection of it will be hard to do, so the fact that we haven't seen any results yet isn't inconsistent or a warning sign. If we thought it was going to be easy and then didn't come up with anything, that would be a different story.

<quote id="204446">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".</quote>

But this concern is based on an incomplete understanding of the evidence (and what still sound a lot like impressions derived from news media sensationalism to me). The idea that some scientists get "too invested" may certainly be true in general, but that is not a valid reason to aspersions on the entire enterprise, because there are always going to be other scientists going in other directions, and in this specific case, the evidence simply isn't nearly as flimsy as you think it is.
</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password