Does is freak anyone else out that 80 percent of the universe's mass comes from a substance we can't explain or observe? Dark matter doesn't emit light or energy, yet it is rapidly growing through our universe and without it we wouldn't exist. The fact that we may never understand our own universe baffles me. We are the kin to this universe and deserve to know more.
What are some of Veeky Forums's theories as to what dark matter is and why we need it?
>beliving in dark matter
You realize that (((scientists))) literally made it up just to fix their equations that kept breaking as they discovered they were more and more wrong about the universe. Dark matter is the "the earth is the center of the universe" of our time.
>substance
Dark matter is not matter thus cannot be defined as a substance instead dark matter is a "something" we cant explain.
dark matter is literaly just black holes. there isnt a form of matter that doesnt interact with electromagnetic spectrum.
Well now that you have pointed out that (((scientists))) made dark matter up, can you explain your theory in what is causing the equations to fail and why they needed to fix them?
Could their equations fail due to approximation issues?
>can you explain your theory in what is causing the equations to fail and why they needed to fix them
I don't devote my life doing autistic number crunching, but it's sad that those that do -- and get paid for it -- shit up a storm and claim MUH DARK MATTER and people eat it up.
>we deserve
well aren't you self-entitled
>How dare scientists make their theories fit the data, and not the other way around
Go back to your shitty containment board.
True. I think I may have been drinking too much fluoridated water..
How can I not fall into the trap of eating that shit up? I feel as if a lot of the popular science of today is made up. I'm beginning to question what's real and what's not.
no morons. the equations fail because there are things out there we havnt detected have significant amounts of gravity which change the spirals of galaxies. thats literaly all it is. We use instraments to detect masses and then put those masses into our equations and see how things should spin vs how they do
You pretty much just validated what said, but it sounded like you were trying to correct him
Well, I want to devote my life to discovering the unknown. but how does one do that and live an enjoyable life. Not saying that an accomplished life is not an enjoyable one, but I would like to travel and such. Haven't you ever felt a connectedness to the universe? That is why I said deserve. If we are truly one with the universe, why can't we have infallible access to the knowledge of the universe?
Remember when some German dude theorized Gravitational Waves and a ton of people didn't think they were real? What a chump am I right?
Or! What about when people had a particle in the Standard Model that we didn't /technically/ knew existed yet but basically said "well, the only way all of the math checks out is if this thing exists so it probably does." God! What IDIOTS!
You don't have to observe something to find data that supports the objects existence.
[spoiler] I couldn't think of a snarky way to mention blackholes but we still don't have an image of one yet. Means they must not exist eh?
MOND
>Does is freak anyone else out that 80 percent of the universe's mass comes from a substance we can't explain or observe?
If you include the energy density of the vacuum actually it says that 100% of the mass-energy in the universe is unexplainable...EVEN THE PART WE CAN EXPLAIN.
>If we are truly one with the universe, why can't we have infallible access to the knowledge of the universe?
Just because we are one with the universe does not imply that we MUST have infallible access to the knowledge of the universe. I don't know if you noticed, but gaining knowledge of the universe is really hard work, and there is absolutely no guarantee that any of it is even correct.
Dark matter is made up. Scientists don't know WHAT it is so they called it dark matter. What I was asking is what the hell is its purpose? How is it important if it we can't detect it in this advanced day and age?
Dark matter is a mathematical canard.
yeah i phrased that wrong.
>dark matter
fake £ gay lol
even the most retarded wacko's of MOND say there needs to be actual black holes or """"dark""" matter for MOND to be close
>How is it important
It keeps physics departments at universities from losing their funding, because if they admitted they had no idea what the fuck they were doing, nobody would keep giving them substantial grants.
Yes, I have noticed that gaining knowledge of the universe is hard, I'm an applied math major looking to double major in physics. BUT in theory, if you think about consciousness and how all consciousness is one. IN THEORY, we should have infallible access to facts about our mind and thus should have infallible access to the universe.
And Lawrence Krauss says philosophers are not needed...
No shit they need funding though. Without the funding they wouldn't be able to be making huge breaks in what we know. You are basically saying everyone in universities have no idea what they are doing, implying that either the people not in university know what they are doing or no one knows which seems like a bastion of logic. If that's the case, why don't we all just give up and blow our brains out?
It would be nice, that's all I can say
You sound like an butt bamboozled physics major, putting money into researching and developing computer hardware and even software (AI) is a lot more promising than the worthlessness that is current physics research.
Did you know that top AI researchers are former physicists and not bachelor of CS holders?
Lol probably am. I'm gonna switch to CompSci because physics fucking sucks. The theory of the universe is great to think about but the hard autistic number crunching isn't for me.
Out of curiosity, What do you do for a living?
You added nothing to the conversation.
See
Just because you don't like the facts, doesn't make them less true
>fix their equations
that's the whole point, dingus. we observe shit, and try to explain it with physics and math. if a model doesn't fit observation, you modify the model to fit things better and try to understand the reason for the modification. it's science, not religion.
Right now, the best theories seem to incorporate Dark shit. To critically evaluate the theory, you have to understand when the model applies, try to make predictions within those parameters, and observe the outcome of events or experiments whose results you tried to predict. Rinse and repeat.
If you have a problem with Dark theories, can you point out their short comings?
>Does is freak anyone else out that 80 percent of the universe's mass comes from a substance we can't explain or observe?
Doesn't it freak you out that most neutrinos fly though the Earth without really interacting with anything.
Honestly, something like Dark Matter could operate on completely different forces than our familiar EM, weak, and strong, while only sharing a gravity coupling. There could literally be "ghosts" living in the space overlapping us, yet the only way to interact is through gravity presumably.
Wow, aren't you just the uneducated little prick.
Almost all of physics research has far-reaching applications than your near-sighted mind can comprehend.
As just one profound example:
Take, for example, a typical collider experiment like CMS at the LHC. Does anyone yet care about measuring the coupling of top-quarts to the higgs boson? No. But you know what such studies does for everyone else? It creates things like neural networks and allows for the capability of multivariate analysis. Deep neural networks can be applied to things like your average google image search. The neural networks can be trained to recognized a variety of things, so when you go to google and type "Beach" it can give you pictures of beaches. Similarly, it is applied to speech and text recognition, allowing your phone to understand what you say when you ask it "Siri, what will the weather be like today?".
So please, take your simple mind and fuck right off. Physics is the largest driver of the technological age, from computing power to new materials to advanced medical imaging.
>I don't know physics but I shitpost on the internet pretending I do
Gr8 post, m8
Like I said you added nothing to the conversation, we're talking about why it's useless to continue funding physics research, you went autismo and started comparing physics majors and CS majors trying to validate your existence, I'm not even a CS major.
>Deep neural networks can be applied to things like your average google image search.
And Skynet.
Soon.
My friend was telling me about neutrinos. Imagine putting a gaussian sphere around out solar system and how many neutrinos are passing through... the probability of a catastrophic event is pretty high it seems.. It's pretty wild to me how little of the universe we can comprehend as human beings.
>useless continuing physics research
for starters, there would be no CS without physics
Do I need to define 'continuing' for you pal?
Physics seems like a lot of mind bending work. I think I might do applied math major cs minor and then go back to school for physics eventually. The physics programs in 4-8 years should be quite improved aswell.
You fucking what mate?
What does neutrino flux have anything to do with catastrophic events?
Neutrinos are just weakly interacting leptons, there is nothing fancy about them. They actually have proven to be very powerful in peering into structures within our universe such as stars and galaxies. Relic neutrinos have provided us also with a glimpse into the events that took place during the 'big bang'.
The child that you are, you have no idea what CONTINUING it might beget
Nor does anyone else
That's why it would be unwise to rest on your laurels now
Oh it might be my lack of knowledge on the topic, my friend was telling me if they were to collide with the nucleus of an atom, it would cause an explosion....
What do neutrinos have to do with the big bang and what EXACTLY are they?
Neutrinos interacting with nucleon typically result in leptons, like electrons or muons emitted. Tau-neutrinos can result in pions which decay to muons, which then decay to electrons. None of this explosive or anything ridiculous.
Relic neutrinos are neutrinos which are left-over from interactions which occurred in the first few moments of the expanding universe. Since many processes emit neutrinos, it can give insight into things we wouldn't otherwise be able to see from photons or other charged particles, due to their weakly interacting nature.
Particles related to electrons (and the other leptons muons and taus) that interact only by gravity and the weak force. They were thought to be massless particles (such as light) until relatively recently when they were proven to have an incredibly small mass by deducing from solar neutrino observations oscillations in "flavor" (which for not-simple reasons to explain can only happen with mass).
They interact with hardly anything, so they can probe inside things like stars because they pass through enormous amounts of matter untouched. Some do interact with objects, though, and these interactions can be detected and imaging can be done, such that you might hear about neutrino observatories in the future. Granted, their ghostly nature that makes them good at looking through things also makes them extremely difficult to detect. You need huge volumes of detectors and a lot of time to get enough signal. One experiment is called the ICE CUBE, which is in Antarctica.
Yes, the entire Phenomenal world buckles under scrutiny and all models must be propped up by fudge factors because it's all a Lie.