🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 02:56:59 UTC No. 16420285
>Dark matter is everywhere even doe I can't detect it, just trust me bro
What's the point of making theoretical guesses widely known when you have zero emperical proof?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 03:21:39 UTC No. 16420373
>>16420285
Dark matter is just a silly name for "whatever is making galaxies spin much faster than our theories predicted". Some people are working on modified mechanics, other believe there is some form of matter that don't interact with forces other than gravity(or more commonly they believe this matter interacts very faintly with other forces).
People who believe in literal dark matter tried to detect it by building massive underground detectors, the logic is that very deep underground most particles that interact with other forces will be naturally blocked by walls and stuff and the only matter non-interactive enough to go that deep would be the supposed dark matter. Up until now, those people failed massively at detecting anything.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 03:26:28 UTC No. 16420387
>>16420285
Here's the solution. Go to Mars and stay there. The average IQ of Earth's population will increase as a direct result.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 03:29:15 UTC No. 16420392
>dark matter is 95% of the universe
but also
>there is no dark matter on earth
what are the odds that something could be 95% of the mass in the entire universe, but still be completely absent on earth?
iron is about 0.1% of the universe by mass and we have vast mountains of the stuff, yet dark matter is 95000% more common and there is none on earth
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 04:14:43 UTC No. 16420498
>>16420392
Read my comment above. People who believe in literal dark matter do believe it is here, but since it interacts very weakly with other forces it is very difficult to detect. That is why they re trying to detect it using underground facilities.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 04:32:33 UTC No. 16420522
>>16420285
If you calculate the density of matter needed to make DM real, it's only something like [math]10^{-19}[/math] particles per cubic meter. That's still way less than the UHV's we can make on Earth.
The real question is how we're able to measure the particle densities of space. How do we know interstellar space is [math]10^{-26}[/math] particles per [math]m^3[/math]? Are we extrapolating Voyager's data from our own solar system? Or is there some kind of ultra-high accuracy way to do it spectroscopically?
Or alternatively, how are soientists able to rule out something like a variable gravitational constant?
It would be nice if the numbers and logic behind these claims was made more public and accessible, instead of relying on faith.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 13:01:18 UTC No. 16420905
>All models are wrong, but some are useful
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:10:27 UTC No. 16421056
>>16420285
The point is to explain observations. Astrophysicists observe things like anomalous galaxy rotations and gravitational lensing in voids, which they cannot explain with their models. So they say it’s some new form of matter that doesn’t interact electromagnetically (hence dark). Then the people doing terrestrial experiments try to find it, but find null results. Normalfags don’t care about such details and just bundle all of us together thinking we’re dishonest schizos. My personal take on dark matter is that astrophysics is fucking garbage when it comes to observations as they constantly have to filter out tons of noise. It’s like if a guy working with lasers had dorito dust floating in his lab 24/7 and instead of cleaning the fucking lab he spent 80% of his paper explaining how he filtered the dust in his statistical analysis.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:17:19 UTC No. 16421071
>>16420285
It is detected. What's funny about the dark matter naysayers is that they're attempting to refute theories of general relativity. That's what dark matter already does!
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:19:09 UTC No. 16421074
>>16421071
Dark matter hasn’t been directly detected and has nothing to do with general relativity. It is supposed to behave like either fermionic or scalar matter. What you’re referring to is “dark energy” ie a bullshit term brainlet astrophysicists use to refer to the cosmological constant.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:23:56 UTC No. 16421083
>>16421074
No, I'm referring to the coma cluster, the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, galaxy rotations and so on. Note that with these collisions and lensing, every single possible systematic effect including calibration, accounting for lensing, etc is taken into account and the result indicated significant distortions of data from expected values. It has to be caused by some mass that cannot be measured via the EM spectrum. Galaxy rotation curves don't have a systematic offset either. Some have dark matter, some don't, and those that do have different amounts. In other words different galaxies show different amounts of rotational anomalies. So if you want to throw out dark matter (which exists both within and between galaxies), then explain via a consistent method every single one of these anomalies.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:28:28 UTC No. 16421091
>>16421083
>I'm referring to the coma cluster, the bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, galaxy rotations and so on
those aren’t direct observation. A direct observation to me, a HEP guy, would mean I know the particle’s spin, mass and gauge group represntation. Can your “direct” observations tell me those? They can only provide bounds.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:32:46 UTC No. 16421099
>>16421091
>spin, mass and gauge group
Are you really stupid enough to think those are directly observed?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:35:05 UTC No. 16421101
>>16421099
I repeat my question. Can any of these observations conclude with good enough statistical significance that dark matter has a mass of X MeV (with error bounds of course), spin of Y and charge Z under this or that group? If so, my goal is to observe the exact same particle in a HEP experiment. All HEP experiments have returned null results so far. Sucks to suck. Review your models.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:40:43 UTC No. 16421104
>>16421101
I'm going to level with you buddy. I'm also a HEP guy, which I why I know how to call your bullshit. If you're going to tell me the higgs was directly observed, then I'm simply going to laugh in your face and call you a retard. You're attached to this particular notion that dark matter is a particle. That's one possible explanation, and not the only one out there. Your HEP bias is showing in thinking dark matter must be a particle. I'm actually inclined to think it's not. Anyway, dark matter is a list of observational anomalies. That you're so fixated on specific candidates for dark matter reveals more about your ignorance on the topic than it does deficiencies in the topic itself.
The bullet cluster is about as direct as evidence is possible for dark matter, and certainly far more direct than anything you talked about in HEP. The most EM energetically dense region of the cluster is measurable. You'd expect a significant amount of energy exchanged in the cluster collision to be tracked through what you can see via EM radiation. You don't. Instead the galaxies during the collision look like they're both dragged and lensed by something outside the bounds of the X-ray gas. This is clearly a directly measured anomaly, far more direct than using triggers for event collision, particle recombinations via anti-kt algorithms, and subsequent b-tagging via the mMDT and then seeing a mass peak and inferring statistically the higgs exists based on the decay products.
Seriously. You think the latter is a direct measurement and the former is an indirect measurement? How fucking stupid are you?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:51:23 UTC No. 16421113
>>16421104
>you're going to tell me the higgs was directly observed
>The bullet cluster is about as direct as evidence is possible for dark matter
>You think the latter is a direct measurement and the former is an indirect measurement? How fucking stupid are you?
Higgs is a model confirmed by observations. Dark matter is an observation with no underlying model. This is the essential difference.
The resonance was seen where it was predicted to be seen. Just because it’s observed inside loops instead of final states doesn’t mean it’s direct. We can predict its properties via interactions, unlike astrophysicists who just use dark matter as an explanation.. And that observation wasn’t replicated in an independent setting (ie outside astrophysics).
>You're attached to this particular notion that dark matter is a particle. That's one possible explanation, and not the only one out there
>That you're so fixated on specific candidates for dark matter
You must be an experimentalist, because you don’t seem to understand that we literally don’t have any alternatives. Poincare invariance in QFT gives an extremely restricted form of the action. You cannot have anything that isn’t a Poincare group representation in there (what we colloquially call a particle), because you cannot build invariants with it. Your action would end up violating the fundamental symmetry of relativity, which is a very brazen assumption. So yes, I’m fixated because I know my shit and understand that anything else would need to stand up against all those extremely stringent tests of Lorentz invariance we have accumulated.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:52:43 UTC No. 16421115
>>16421113
>we literally don’t have any alternatives.
Then what are MACHOS and primordial superfluid, you dunce?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 15:58:25 UTC No. 16421122
>>16421115
Hypothetical stuff composed of particles. Don't have to be SM particles, but they have to be excitations of Poincare group representations ie relativistic quantum fields. More questions?
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:05:12 UTC No. 16421135
>>16421122
So black holes are particles and/or composed of particles, according to you. Good chat. You're delusional.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:11:52 UTC No. 16421148
>>16421135
Ok, black holes then. Let’s talk about those. From your argumentation, I assume we throw out the idea that dark matter is exotic. Black holes can only be primordial or emerge as a result of star evolution then. That astrophysics fails to properly predict black hole formation and distribution is a problem with the astrophysical model itself and not some deep, unexplained mystery of the universe. We’re back to my original statement. Review your fucking models.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:18:34 UTC No. 16421160
>>16421148
Dark matter isn't a model. It's observational anomalies. Either throw out the models entirely or accept dark matter. The models have been reviewer and accepted as good enough, via their predictive power. Dark matter then is a natural consequence.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:28:05 UTC No. 16421183
>>16421160
>Either throw out the models entirely or accept dark matter
That’s not how science works. The purpose of science is to explain observations with models. If you don’t have a model for your observations, then you’re not doing your job.
>The models have been reviewer and accepted as good enough, via their predictive power
Which one exactly? And if that so, why do astrophysicists still talk about dark matter as some mysterious thing we know nothing about instead of going “oh, it’s just black holes” or “oh, it’s just these clumps of stuff that formed due to this and that process that we can’t observe because of these and those observational limitations”? And why do you see thousands of HEP theory papers still published on the topic of dark matter as some exotic new thing.
I’ll tell you why. It’s the same reason they talk about le dark energy as some mysterious thing we know nothing about even though it’s just the cosmological constant. It’s to whore for grants. The “if a doctor cures all diseases then he’s out of his job” dilemma. Abhorrent state of things.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 16:45:38 UTC No. 16421202
>>16420373
They aren't spinning faster though, it's just an optical illusion
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:32:26 UTC No. 16421372
>>16421183
>The purpose of science is to explain observations with models
Ok wise guy. What do the peaks mean in the multipole expansion of the wmap data? Protip: the solid line is a model
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:35:16 UTC No. 16421378
>>16421183
>why do you see thousands of HEP theory papers still published on the topic of dark matter as some exotic new thing.
This should answer your question. I recall you have a HEP focus so hopefully the understanding of HEPfags ambulance chasing the diphoton excess will help explain their collective hysteria over dark matter particles
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 18:46:45 UTC No. 16421402
>>16421372
No idea. Not my field. Don't really get what WMAP anisotropy stuff has to do with the subject at hand. You still haven't told me what dark matter definitively is throughout all those responses, despite claiming you have the answer. I'm not asking for evidence (I have never denied it). I am asking for an explanation that can be robustly tested.
>>16421378
Very interesting paper. But I have to point out
>I believe it is fair to say that the motivation for engaging in ambulance chasing is mostly scientific
>I base the first part of the statement on a personal observation that I have yet to meet a single particle physicist who is pursuing a career in physics for any reason other than love and interest in science.
wow very scientific. Personal "passion and love" has nothing to do with scientific rigor. It also doesn't answer my question because
>Note that the goal of this paper is not to examine the ethical aspects of ambulance chasing, but to provide some level of quantitative and qualitative understanding of the underlying dynamics.
My question was also rhetorical, if you didn't quite catch that.
Anonymous at Fri, 11 Oct 2024 19:00:31 UTC No. 16421465
>>16421402
Man, imagine missing the point that badly.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 04:15:58 UTC No. 16422279
>>16421071
>It is detected.
show me some dark matter.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 04:25:41 UTC No. 16422295
>>16420285
Its literally the only way to ever come up with anything now that easy experiments all have been done.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 04:27:58 UTC No. 16422302
>>16420387
>is just IS alright? what are you stupid?
very scientific mind you got there
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 05:01:23 UTC No. 16422370
Dark matter is fake and gay but theres no such thing as "empirical" proof.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:02:56 UTC No. 16422504
>>16420285
>emperical
ESL. Next!
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:05:20 UTC No. 16422506
>you can detect everything
OP retard
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 08:09:18 UTC No. 16422513
>>16422295
>capturing a milliliter of helium from a massive underground tank
>easy
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:01:13 UTC No. 16422600
>>16420285
some years ago you would've said that about neutrinos thoughbeit
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:14:49 UTC No. 16422606
>>16422600
Neutrinos were theorized in the 30s and observed in the 50s. That’s 20 years. In the same 20 years all we got are null results. And in the case of neutrinos, there was a clear process producing them, beta decay, whereas dark matter is just “out there”.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:21:37 UTC No. 16422610
Fatties. (Millions of trillion)
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:27:23 UTC No. 16422613
Distraction of one's own mind.
Garrote at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:27:32 UTC No. 16422614
Maybe the real dark matter was all the friends we made along the way.
Garrote at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:29:24 UTC No. 16422615
What's the characterization of a dark matter interaction? That is, roughly speaking, how would said interaction differ from one with regular matter?
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 11:29:29 UTC No. 16422616
;)
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 12:52:20 UTC No. 16422677
>>16422606
Dark matter was theorized in 1933 by Zwicky applying the Virial theorem. Dark matter observations blew up in the '60s.
Anonymous at Sat, 12 Oct 2024 13:13:01 UTC No. 16422696
>>16422677
based schizo headcannon