Dark Matter

I think dark matter has a "branding" problem.
The name implies that there is some unseen matter, but no one knows that specifically for sure.

More accurately, it's "unexplained mass" but that doesn't sound as sexy (marketable and research-able). If we called it "unexplained mass" it makes it sound like it's a instrument or mathematical problem, in other words, a "scientist" problem.

When you call it "dark matter" it's a "universe" problem, as if the universe is mysterious and/or hiding itself from us.

By calling it "dark matter" it changes how we view it and how we research it. It appears that is contributing to why we can't explain it.

Discuss.

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=al4b4EWBzCg
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Dark matter is called dark matter because Zwicky noted in the 1930's that the virial mass of the Coma cluster was much larger than mass to light ratios measured locally would imply. There was matter that was darker than was thought to be typical, dunkle Materie, dark matter. A factual name.

You can' choose what name sticks. The big bang for example is a terrible name but it's too late.

Does any of this affect the research being done on it? No. Astronomers aren't stupid. Dark matter, specifically cold dark matter, has come to dominate cosmology not because of a snappy name but because of its observational successes and because it is leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

>Does any of this affect the research being done on it?
I think "unexplained mass" asks a much different question than "dark matter" hence why research is heavily towards looking for non-baryonic matter which very well might not be the answer at all. In fact, we have no evidence of it as of late.

Maybe new questions need to be asked. I'm not saying their observations are wrong (but they could be) rather, they are looking for "dark matter" that might not be there at all.

Reminds me a lot of luminiferous aether. That ended up not existing either.

>hence why research is heavily towards looking for non-baryonic matter which very well might not be the answer at all
If you think this has anything to do with the name then you are extremely ignorant. CDM is by far the most successful model, that won't change until there is a better one.

>In fact, we have no evidence of it as of late.
That is simply not true. From the powerspectrum of the cosmic microwave background to cluster mergers like the bullet cluster dark matter is stronger than ever as a model. Whining about the name isn't going to change that.

It isn't matter, so everyone is just approaching it wrong to begin with. It should be called dark gravity.

What is the difference between dark matter and anti matter?

>CDM is by far the most successful model, that won't change until there is a better one.
but it's a bad model because they have no proof of the non-baryonic matter to begin with. Again, "unexplained mass" is more accurate.

they might as well say "God is doing it".

We have produced anti-matter for one. We have observed it.

>but it's a bad model because they have no proof of the non-baryonic matter to begin with. Again, "unexplained mass" is more accurate.
No it's a hypothesis. CDM predates the idea of non-baryonic dark matter, it doesn't require it either. CDM is a model that can be tested. This is cosmology, models are the best we will ever get.

Unexplained mass isn't more accurate because CDM isn't an observation it's a model.

>they might as well say "God is doing it".
Don't be so ignorant. CDM is a model, with some simple initial conditions taken from the CMB it can tell you how the structure in the universe formed. It is a predictive model and it doesn't require any arbitrary parameters like modified gravitys do. It is testable, nothing like claiming god did it.

it's just non-luminous matter

A lot of science gets fancy names for marketing purposes

>Pic related
>Really just a long-winded regression model
>Oooooo it's a neural network oooo kind of like a brain oooooo secret to AI maybe ooooooooOOooOoOOooooo

Why are cosmologists speculating on particles? It's like a chiropractor commenting on neurology.

How do the two fields become bridged in this problem? They are obviously related.

>CDM is a model, with some simple initial conditions taken from the CMB it can tell you how the structure in the universe formed. It is a predictive model and it doesn't require any arbitrary parameters like modified gravitys do. It is testable, nothing like claiming god did it.
yeah but, there isn't much to show for it besides the models.

I guess gravity is the same. We see it all of the time but we can't explain why it's happening. "gravity particles" makes everyone groan but for some reason people like the dark matter particles.

Again, CDM doesn't specify anything about particles. It was particle physicists who suggested dark matter was particle based motivated by the "WIMP miracle".

And no, there is a great amount of overlap between the two.

>yeah but, there isn't much to show for it besides the models.
Apart from it's various observational successes? It predicted the shape of the CMB powerspectrum. It predicted the existence and location of the baryon acoustic peak in the modern universe. It predicted the one and two halo term in galaxy clustering. It naturally predicts situations like the bullet cluster. And there are just the headlines, it can be compared in dozens of tests and that is being done.

>Again, CDM doesn't specify anything about particles.
which is a problem.
yeah, but, you can't show "why" which is a huge part of the issue.

Why hasn't it been called a different form of gravity or some other phenomena? I see it like ancient cultures observing orbits of planets while not understanding that gravity is a thing.

>which is a problem.
That's not a problem. It's a cosmological model, it makes predictions on cosmological scales.

>yeah, but, you can't show "why" which is a huge part of the issue.
It does show you why. In CDM the particles act only under gravity so their physics is entirely described without knowing what they are. CDM tells you why, it doesn't say what it is but that's a different point.

>Why hasn't it been called a different form of gravity or some other phenomena?
Because CDM is CDM. It's like asking why orange juice isn't coffee, because they're different things by defintion. There are models which try to explain the same observations that CDM does without dark matter by modifying gravity, there are different models. The models exist but none of them are consistent with most of the data.

>In CDM the particles act only under gravity
but that's the huge assumption. you have no proof of the particles, only the effect of what you assume are particles.
>without dark matter by modifying gravity, there are different models. The models exist but none of them are consistent with most of the data.
I'm saying it's a difference force altogether. It's not a particle and it's not gravity.

>but that's the huge assumption. you have no proof of the particles, only the effect of what you assume are particles.
It's a model, a hypothesis. All hypotheses make assumptions. Again CDM says nothing about particles.

>I'm saying it's a difference force altogether. It's not a particle and it's not gravity.
Which is also a "huge assumption" by your logic.

Go build this model of yours and see if you can beat CDM and make new predictions. That's how science works, not by worrying about what things are called. Wen you have a model that rivals CDM you can talk about the terminology of the field.

>Again CDM says nothing about particles.
yes it does.
Even you said it.>In CDM the particles act only under gravity so their physics is entirely described without knowing what they are.
>I'm saying it's a difference force altogether. It's not a particle and it's not gravity.
>Which is also a "huge assumption" by your logic.
but it's a better idea. it doesn't alter gravity and I'm not in some observational circle jerk leaving out the big details.

>yes it does.
Not subatomic particles. I'm speaking of particles in an N body simulation. The particles are just a tool used to study it in a way that computers can solve.

>but it's a better idea.
You might think so but there's absolutely no objective reason that's true. It also may never work. Science doesn't have any means to compare a model that doesn't exist. So go build your model and see how easy it is.

>You might think so but there's absolutely no objective reason that's true.
Non-baryonic particles are in the same boat because there is absolutely no evidence that they exist except when astrophysicists want them to.

They have a huge fucking problem without the science. It's "poorly understood" to use a scientific term.

>Non-baryonic particles are in the same boat because there is absolutely no evidence that they exist except when astrophysicists want them to.
What boat? Nobody is claiming dark matter is a "better idea".You're the one asserting that you know which hypothesis is better a priori, that's totally unscientific.

Dark matter is a strong model not because it is a "better idea" but because people put effort into building a model and testing it. Your vague ideas of what could be are not on the same level because you haven't even shown it can work much less that it is a simpler model or provides unique predictions.

>but because people put effort into building a model and testing it.
so feelings. totally scientific.

The most accurate definition of "dark matter" is "anomalous galactic rotation curves."

awesome. now that sounds like a starting point. WIMPS suck balls.

Not feelings, hard observational evidence. Much more productive than simply whining about it.

But that's wrong also. Dark matter has many more observable, the CMB powerspectrum, gravitational lensing, cosmic shear, galaxy clustering, the expansion history of the universe. The original evidence for dark matter was in galaxy clusters, not rotation curves.

Dark matter is bullshit, user. Some sandnigger scientists had no idea what this fuck-up in space was, made something up called dark matter, and did some random ass equations that seem to work.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=al4b4EWBzCg

The type of people who don't understand what is meant by dark matter and will misinterpret the name aren't the kinds of people who actually do the science so it is pointless to change it

What is dark matter is the remnants of blackholes containing extreme amounts of mass

m.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo

>hard observational evidence.
they don't know what they are observing.

A model makes predictions you can test with observations. For example in that plot it's galaxy clustering from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. It shows very clearly that galaxy clustering is not just a power law and diverges into one and two halo terms as predicted by dark matter models. In CDM these terms reflect galaxies inside the same large halo and galaxies in different halos.

they don't know what they are observing.