© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-life-and-death-and-life-of-dark-matter/
This article is marked as 'retired'. The information here may be out of date, incomplete, and/or incorrect.
Judging from the observed movements of distance bodies in outer space, scientists have long speculated that there is much more matter in the universe than we are aware of. The Newtonian theory of gravity predicts that galaxies will move a certain way given the gravity of their observable mass, but every time, the galaxies behave as though they contain about four times more matter than we can detect.
In 1913, a Norwegian physicist named Kristian Birkeland wrote about the possibility of unobservable matter filling up the gaps in our universe, and in 1933 a Swiss astrophysicist named Fritz Zwicky made a series of observations on a cluster of galaxies which led him to the same hypothesis. Based on Newtonian mechanics, he concluded that the galaxies must be under the influence of more gravity than that of all the detectable matter in the cluster. His observations were among the first to suggest the existence of Dark Matter.
The theory of dark matter refers to clouds of exotic particles of unknown composition that reside in the areas between stars. These theoretical particles are completely unobservable because they do not emit or reflect any appreciable amount of detectable light or radiation. They are thought to be made up of nifty-sounding subatomic bits such as neutralinos, axions, SIMPs (Strongly Interacting Massive Particles), and WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), however the standard model of particle physics does not recognize these exotic particles; their existence is purely hypothetical. But if the dark matter theory is true, only 4% of the of the total mass of the universe is made up of observable matter, leaving 23% for dark matter, and 73% as dark energy… an even more bizarre cousin of dark matter which has anti-gravitational properties.
In late July 2005, the initial-happy scientific colleagues F. I. Cooperstock and S. Tieu from University of Victoria made an effort to put dark matter into an early grave. They built a galaxy model which replaced I. Newton’s theory of gravity with A. Einstein’s theory of general relativity, under the notion that Newton loses his grip on interactions under those circumstances. In their model, no dark matter was necessary to explain the movements of bodies. Their theory had a nice beat and you could dance to it, but its days were numbered.
Less than a month later, a Ph. D. student at Warsaw University named Mikolaj Korzynski had exhumed the corpse of dark matter, successfully reanimated it, and sent it on a rampage. His paper showed how the model that F. I. and S. had used was physically incorrect, and described how it made some questionable assumptions. Dark matter is back, and it’s pissed. But the battle may only be beginning. Cooperstock and Tieu or a third party may yet counter-attack with a new equation-riddled paper-bomb.
For now, the theory of dark matter/dark energy is back in the realm of the scientifically feasible. Its existence would explain more than the simple gravitational anomalies, it would also account for the rate of expansion of in the universe, fill holes in the Big Bang theory, and explain how the universe’s matter became distributed the way it is today. But since dark matter is, by definition, not directly observable with current technology, its presence may be condemned to the unpredictable waiting room of science for a long time to come.
CERN Courier article
Wikipedia article on Dark Matter
Wikipedia article on Dark Energy
© 2005 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/retired/the-life-and-death-and-life-of-dark-matter/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
I actually watched NOVA twice on this subject. I took notes and everything. There is a whole lot out there going on that we have absolutely no grasp of and can only prove it even exists by mathmatics; which I really, really stink at. Now let me be clear. I do NOT believe in Aliens. However, I do believe in Dark Energy and Dark Matter as it can be mathematically proven, which I really, really stink at.
But that is OK that I really stink at mathematics. It has been at the route of many great discoveries I cannot think of right now. I am much better at the Bible which has very interesting mathematical prophcies (not numerology or counting stars, the number for scriptures or any of those you no doubt have heard of. ) However, Time, Times, Half a time, Days of years and so on were very, very familiar to the Ancient Jews and that is why they knew exactly when the Messiah was coming. Even the Samaritans knew and complete pagans of other nations understood the prophecy. Unfortunately, the Pharisees would not be outdone by some guy who was loved by the masses and would answer their questions with scriptures. (People hate that sor of thing.) So, they pretty much scuttled that so called Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Are you serious??
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isnt the lack of other life in the Universe a statistic improbability based on the sheer likely hood of the conditions needed to create life as we know it occuring randomly countless times through out the universe?
The Drake Equation, thats Math. Its factors are simply speculative.
JAN, your biblical quotes are fine, but it seems as if you’re just using them when they’re not applicable to cause problems. It’s stuff like that that makes people dislike the Bible.
Oh, and that Dark Matter picture is pure genius, man.
This article reads a bit like a sports commentary. Interesting stuff, though, of course, one which I’ve been interested in for a while. Guess it’s time to actually go read up on it on my own.
Dementia said: “JAN, your biblical quotes are fine, but it seems as if you’re just using them when they’re not applicable to cause problems. It’s stuff like that that makes people dislike the Bible.”
I agree. Bringing it up in context is one thing but thumping it outside of the subject is quite another. Discretion is a great tool. It’s nothing you should be ashamed of (in fact it is a great thing to be proud and confident enough in your beliefs that you’re willing to share with those interested) but there is a correct time and place.
Just one question: Is that picture of dark matter an actual photo or an artist’s rendering? :smiley face:
Didn’t they find out recently that neutrinos have mass? I’ve always wondered if that mightn’t account for all this really hard to detect matter in the universe. There’s supposed to be billions of neutrinos passing through your fingernail at any given moment or something, right?
Additionally, big ups for the illustration. You really captured the character and poise of dark matter.
I’m willing to bet Dark Matter and Dark Energy don’t exist the way they’re theorized and is probably something a lot simpler. Years from now, long distance space travel will begin, more direct measurements will be taken, and someone’s going to say, “Wait a second. We were WAY off!”
I’m not too sure about Dark Matter. It’s fine as a theory of course, but I feel as if it is something of a cop-out, like Intelligent Design. In intelligent design, everything is explained by just saying “designer” which is a sneaky way of saying “god”. It’s a cop-out because it’s not an explanation, heck, they don’t even try to explain. Sure, holes in evolution exist, but it’s our duty to fill them in with science, not God. IDers just say “designer” to make it all go away. With Dark matter, I have the sinking suspicion that it’s the same thing. It looks like the theory didn’t predict what was observed, so they said “dark matter”. You can’t see it and it will probably never be verified.
I don’t mean to say that Dark Matter does not exist, but I am sceptical whenever someone offers a solution which fixes the problem easily, can’t be tested or verified. It seems that there was a hole in the theory and they looked for an easy way to gloss over it.
And what’s the deal with it making up 73% of our universe? I have strong doubts about this statement.
This is exactly why I gave up theoretical physics are started Biology. Every time the theory doesn’t quite fit, physicists make up another unproven, unobservable type of matter/partical to fix it. Until they produce one in a lab, I don’t buy it.
All these types of particles have come out in cosmology. Dark matter, Mirror Matter, Anti-gravity matter, all of which look kinda shaky to me.
Scientists should insist that dark matter is the most precious material in the universe. Then I could walk around saying “Look at my dark matter necklace! Isn’t it beautiful? It was over a zillion dollars to make. Well, of course you can’t see it. It’s dark matter.”
I am not so sure about the dark matter, but the dark energy intrigues me. Is there , perhaps, a “dark side” and a “light side” to this energy? Could this be the force that people have been talking about for the last almost 30 years?
…just when you thought it was safe to walk around in the dark by yourself, this comes along…
Then again, there was no mention of the Dark Side…beware of The Force!
DoctorD said: “I am not so sure about the dark matter, but the dark energy intrigues me. Is there , perhaps, a “dark side” and a “light side” to this energy? Could this be the force that people have been talking about for the last almost 30 years?”
That’s funny, actual dark matter and light matter. So perhaps dark matter is too dark for us to see, and light matter is too bright? Like a noise that’s too high-pitched?
Of course the inability to prove so many things is what makes science so frustrating. That, and the changeability that makes half the science I learned in middle school obsolete. Still, I’m a Trekkie. Believe in the power of science, oh ye of little faith! Believe! ;) ^_^
I too enjoyed the article, (and the rendering of dark matter), but I’m not so ready to dismiss it as is Kafka. Sure it’s not possible “at this time” to prove it’s existence, nor it’s lack of existence. And is “does” stink a little of a cop out. But look at it this way: If they could explain everything, what would be left to explore?
At one point in time, we (humans) didn’t know what the sun was. It was worshiped as a god because this was the best way anyone could figure out to explain it.
Dark matter (while it shouldn’t necessarily be worshiped) should not be dropped like a hot potatoe because we can’t see it, or understand it (at least not most of us). Instead, we should look for new ways to discover it’s true nature, and gain a better understanding of it.
Perhaps we should pose hypothesises, try to prove (and disprove) them, study the results…you know science 101…
It seems to me that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really convenient for scientists to make up. For instance, they needed to come up with certain values in order to explain why the universe is acting the way it does. They make up something totally random as said “dark matter” and call it genius. In other words, they make up something totally rediculous to explain the very thing they know nothing about. It is like inventing a perfect solution to explain everything that needs explaing… yet when they are asked how it works they say ” ummm ohh yea, we didn’t really think of that.”
I switched to running my car on dark matter just last week. Lot cheaper than gasoline, but it is very dangerous to drive at night as noone can see you coming and the headlights don’t work. Ford is coming out with one in 2008 and said that you can order one in any color you want, as long as it is black.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Stead311 said: “It seems to me that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are really convenient for scientists to make up. For instance, they needed to come up with certain values in order to explain why the universe is acting the way it does. They make up something totally random as said “dark matter” and call it genius. “
Science is all about making up theories, then testing them until they are proven wrong. this dark matter phenomonon is so strange that the best way to explain it is in the form of dark matter- because it acts just like invisible matter. That’s the only way we can explain it right now and if it works for awhile of course it’s convenient. Better than doing something inconvenient. The whole intregue of dark matter is that no one knows what it is and everyone is trying to figure that out. There’s a new theory out- not a very popular one- called MOND that explains the dark matter phenomonon away by saying that instead of there being massive amounts of invisible stuff floating around the universe this effect is just caused by Newton’s laws. They say that for large distances and weak gravitational forces the laws of gravitation change a little bit and cause things to act dark matter would make them act. There’s an article about it in discover magazine that I haven’t read so i don’t know a whole lot about it but i would recomend checking it out
thatsmyname says:
Are you serious??
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isnt the lack of other life in the Universe a statistic improbability based on the sheer likely hood of the conditions needed to create life as we know it occuring randomly countless times through out the universe?
seems like you’re operating under the assumption that we constitute intelligent life and personally, i think we’d be awfully egotistical in further assuming that we are the only intelligent life in the whole of creation- thats not to say that they’re any more advanced than we are or even as advanced. i personally don’y have any fears of being anally probed in a flying saucer…
scifi_addict said: “Science is all about making up theories, then testing them until they are proven wrong. “
I totally understand this and agree with you, yet the whole point I am trying to make is that you can’t even test this! So they kinda pat themselves on the back for ingenuity that can’t be challenged. They made it up to fit most every problem and dont need to test it to be true. I saw a special on it on Discovery Science. It was very interesting.
Stead311 said: “I totally understand this and agree with you, yet the whole point I am trying to make is that you can’t even test this! So they kinda pat themselves on the back for ingenuity that can’t be challenged. They made it up to fit most every problem and dont need to test it to be true. I saw a special on it on Discovery Science. It was very interesting.”
You can’t test it NOW, that doesn’t mean that tomorrow they won’t come up with a way to test it, they are working on it even as we type back and forth. I don’t think they are “patting themselves on the back” and calling it quits. They continue to attempt to prove/disprove the theory, again and again. Science 101, that’s what has gotten us this far. Without it we would still be poking wolly mammoths with sticks and getting eaten for it.
Stead311 said: “the whole point I am trying to make is that you can’t even test this! So they kinda pat themselves on the back for ingenuity that can’t be challenged. They made it up to fit most every problem and dont need to test it to be true. I saw a special on it on Discovery Science. It was very interesting.”
I think there’s a difference here between what the media thinks is exciting for the public to hear and what scientists actually do. I’ve seen those specials on TV and they’re all like woooo dark matter is so amazing aren’t we so smart! But really people are searching to find out what exactly it is and a lot of people are trying to prove it wrong. and you CAN test it. saying you can’t test dark matter is like saying you can’t test the big bang. sure you weren’t there when the big bang happened but you can see the evidence from it like the CMB, motion of matter in the universe, etc. astronomy isn’t about putting something in the lab and poking it with a stick- it’s about making up models that describe what happens in the universe. For example if you look at the rotation curve of a galaxy you can see that the the matter on the outer edges is moving at the same speed as the matter nearer to the center. The only way this could happen (according to our laws of gravity) is if there was a ton of matter near the edges of the galaxy. The only problem is we can’t see this extra matter that should be there. So our conclusion from this is that the best explination we can think of so far for why this happens is that there’s some kind of matter out there that we can’t see.
Just to clarify i’m not defending the theory of dark matter itself- i think it’s sort of a temporary fix until we find out what’s actually causing these effects- be it WIMPS, MACHOs or other particles we have yet to detect, problems with the theory of gravity like MOND or whatever. Im just arguing that you CAN test the effects of dark matter and it’s not just some crazy theory that can’t be challenged that scientists woke up one day and decided to invent.
Just because we cannot see dark matter with our eyes does not mean we cannot observe its influence on the behavior of stars, galaxies, cluster, superclusters, and the various filaments, sheets, and bubbles that make up the structure of our visible universe.
Computer models including all of the physics we know exists today show that without dark matter we cannot explain these structures.
Additionally, we can tell something of the behavior of dark matter because of those computer simulations. Beyond that, the data collected by NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) revealed fairly convincingly that the universe is 76% dark matter and energy and only 4% “normal” matter (though I would question calling something normal if it’s the clear minority). Without a significant change in our understanding of physics we must accept DM and DE.
I came across some lecture slides earlier this year by Alexander Mayer, who proposes that we have the geometry of space-time wrong, and that time points in different directions in different places (think like “up” is in different directions at different points on the Earth). With this model, Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not required to explain the “anomalous” phenomena that they were introduced for, and various other cosmological “problems” are fixed, too.
Unfortunately, my physics is not strong enough to evaluate the model and associated claims, but I found it interesting reading. See “The Many Directions of Time – Solving the Cosmology Puzzle” available from:
http://afmayer.net/
Kafka said: “I’m not too sure about Dark Matter. It’s fine as a theory of course, but I feel as if it is something of a cop-out, like Intelligent Design. In intelligent design, everything is explained by just saying “designer” which is a sneaky way of saying “god”. It’s a cop-out because it’s not an explanation, heck, they don’t even try to explain. Sure, holes in evolution exist, but it’s our duty to fill them in with science, not God. IDers just say “designer” to make it all go away. With Dark matter, I have the sinking suspicion that it’s the same thing. It looks like the theory didn’t predict what was observed, so they said “dark matter”. You can’t see it and it will probably never be verified.
I don’t mean to say that Dark Matter does not exist, but I am sceptical whenever someone offers a solution which fixes the problem easily, can’t be tested or verified. It seems that there was a hole in the theory and they looked for an easy way to gloss over it.
I think that when the term was first coined, it was just a placeholder for something new that needed to be figured out when our ability to measure stuff out in the universe exceeded the older method of describing how it works. The scientific method works that way… you observe, create a theory of how things unfold based on observations, and test the living ^&*%$ out of it as best you can… if the theory is disproved, find a better one by replacing the old one with something different or just refine the old one to make it more accurate. As the article states, Zwicky observed the way clusters moved didn’t quite fit the current model and saw that it needed to be changed… so he proposed a theory that since it acts like there is more matter there than we can see, we’ll call what we need to explain matter, and since we can’t see it we’ll call it dark.
It does predjudice the people’s concept of how it works having a name like that, but scientists write their beginning theories for other scientists so that it can be tested, not for the general layman so he gets the big picture.
We know black holes exist, yet they cannot be seen. We know they are there because of their effect on their surroundings.
With dark matter being an interim name for something we need to find that has a large effect on the structure of the universe, there are many other theories where people are trying to figure out what kind of stuff it is and come up with a way to test it. Dark matter isn’t the name of the answer, it’s like the word “winner” written on a bowling trophy at the beginning of a tournament – no one knows who the winner will be, but everyone is going to try and find out.
Good answer Drakvil!!
The feature article in this month’s Discover is about pretty much exactly this. Basically, a physicist (can’t remember the name, sorry) has modified Newton’s equation for the force due to gravity so as to account for observations presently explained by dark matter. IIRC, his theory is totally compatible with general relativity, so it isn’t quite as earth-shaking as the cover would make it seem, but it still is quite significant because many many many of the present cosmological theories out there rely on dark matter to work.
I’m saving that picture of dark matter for my wallpaper =)
Last I checked, science was about things we could see, prove, and demonstrate repeatedly under controlled conditions. This seems to be missing something there…
Perhaps we are just really optimistic about the state of accuracy of the assumptions in human “knowledge”.
Perhaps we should just admit that sometimes “hey, we don’t know, but we’re working on it”.
Or perhaps God just made it that way to make the Big Bang theory look silly ::: evil grin:::
I have always thought that Dark Matter was a huge cop-out. Science – as I was taught in school – is making observations of a certain phenomena, doing experimental investigations, and eventually coming up with a theoretical explanation of that phenomena. Well… the problem that keeps coming up is that according to the Einsteinian model… there is 4 times the mass there should be for these galaxies. But we can’t detect anything out there except for the galaxy. So, how about we take a second look at the apparent flaws of the Einsteinian theory, instead of coming up with some imaginary fix-it like “dark matter.”
Neutrinos used to be in exactly the same situation – they were made up to make the equations balance, then people started figuring out how they would have to act, then people went out and actually detected them! We are just starting to figure out how dark matter acts; just a few months ago a group measured the distribution of dark matter around a galaxy and deduced how fast it must be moving to maintain that distribution.
Our best estimate of the mass of neutrinos seems to say that they are too light to be a major component of dark matter.
So, how about we take a second look at the apparent flaws of the Einsteinian theory, instead of coming up with some imaginary fix-it like “dark matter.””
That’s great, you go and do that and tell us when you have it figured out. However, in the mean time, what do you suggest we say when we want to reference this discongruity? Dark matter sounded pretty good to me.
jeffschmitz said: “That’s great, you go and do that and tell us when you have it figured out. However, in the mean time, what do you suggest we say when we want to reference this discongruity? Dark matter sounded pretty good to me.”
Exactly, right now we need the concept of dark matter to make many of our models work. Until someone can prove/disprove the existance of dark matter or come up with something better, we need to stick with the concept.
It took over 25 years to detect the first neutrino before it was predicted.
I still believe there’s a small chance it could be neutrinos or something similar, we still don’t really understand ’em. (Apparently neutrinos can change back and forth between different neutrino forms, something I still don’t completely understand),
Light Matter,
Dark Matter,
Doesn’t Matter…
…take your pick!
m_lars said: “Basically, a physicist (can’t remember the name, sorry) has modified Newton’s equation for the force due to gravity so as to account for observations presently explained by dark matter.”
Heh. You mean someone gathering Newton’s work relative to this, and just scribbling a big “X 4” next to it?
another viewpoint said: “Light Matter,
Dark Matter,
Doesn’t Matter…
…take your pick!”
I’m quite fond of food matter.
I suppose that lots of people have thought of this before. And there must be good scientific reason why this can’t be true. But in all the debate, I’ve not seen this addressed. Is it possible that dark matter is just… dark? I mean, without any special, weird, properties. Are we just too light-centric? I mean, there must be an awful lot of normal matter in the universe, maybe 73%, that we can’t see because it doesn’t make, or reflect enough light.
another viewpoint said: “Light Matter,
Dark Matter,
Doesn’t Matter…
…take your pick!”
That made me laugh out loud. Thanks.
Lennes said: “I’m quite fond of food matter.”
Especially PIE!
adastra said: “I suppose that lots of people have thought of this before. And there must be good scientific reason why this can’t be true. But in all the debate, I’ve not seen this addressed. Is it possible that dark matter is just… dark? I mean, without any special, weird, properties. Are we just too light-centric? I mean, there must be an awful lot of normal matter in the universe, maybe 73%, that we can’t see because it doesn’t make, or reflect enough light.”
Adastra, one of the ugly truths about astronomy is that the light in it’s various spectra is all that we can see about distant objects. In all intellectual honesty, we cannot “see” any stars but our own Sun. We cannot see their shape or form, just the color of their light emissions (visible, x-ray, gamma, etc.). The problem of course being is that we know that light can be affected by dust, gases, even gravitational pull. Over the course of a few billion miles, you have to account for the fact that there can be distortions. But all we have to work with is the end product that reaches us. So even though I would say that a lot of our assumptions, which is all they are, about distant objects are true it would be silly for us to say we know anything for certain. The only definitive thing we can say is “it looks like something is out there”. So Dark Matter, if there is any, simply doesn’t have to reflect or emit enough light to reach us. If there is no light, we can’t really detect it’s existance except through inference (i.e. guesswork)
Physics is of course about formulating theories, with gaps filled with placeholders for the time being while we don’t know any better. Dark Matter does however, at least to me, have a distinct whiff of the luminiferous aether, the substance postulated to carry electromagnetic waves. Over time, the concept became ever more contorted and absurd to fit observations. Of course, then came relativity, which was a generally far more satisfactory answer for a lot of stuff, and the need for a universal aether frame disappeared in a puff of smoke as a consequence. I suspect we need a better general theory to get rid of dark matter too.
The picture is very funny.
Yep. Whoever did it sure has a good sense of humor… :-P
I tend to agree with ShenWolf. The largest concentration of matter in the universe is found in “black holes”… which, by definition are dark!
Energy itself is just a different form of matter. Think of all the light and heat energy that matter has been converting to over the eons! Just think that all the points of light that we see in the sky, our Sun included, only a small fraction what is produced by the light source is visible to us. The stars are shining in a full 360 degree sphere… and they’ve been doing this for billions of years. And all we see is the visible spectrum. Think of all that matter that has been converted to light/heat/radiation. The universe is FILLED with it, but we only see the point of light that is shining directly at us.
In all their models, have scientist accounted for the matter in black holes, non-light emitting heavenly bodies, and energy?
ShenWolf said: “I’m saving that picture of dark matter for my wallpaper =)
Last I checked, science was about things we could see, prove, and demonstrate repeatedly under controlled conditions. This seems to be missing something there…
Perhaps we are just really optimistic about the state of accuracy of the assumptions in human “knowledge”.
Perhaps we should just admit that sometimes “hey, we don’t know, but we’re working on it”.
Or perhaps God just made it that way to make the Big Bang theory look silly ::: evil grin:::”
Agreed.
WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles)
ShenWolf said: “Last I checked, science was about things we could see, prove, and demonstrate repeatedly under controlled conditions. This seems to be missing something there…”
I think you’re disregarding whole branches of science… I don’t think you’ll find too many experimental geologists, paleontologists, or astronomers. The nature of these disciplines does not allow for much repetition or laboratory conditions. For the things that geologists study, the time scale is hard to deal with in a laboratory as they are dealing with time periods greater than the entire existance of human civilization to date. It is also very hard to duplicate fossil creation under lab conditions, as that takes thousands of years as well. Astronomy is also difficult to reproduce in the laboratory as any laboratory that could hold the universe would probably create enough gravity to skew the results. The fastest space probe we could possibly construct using today’s technology would take more than 50 years to reach the nearest star, then we would have to wait almost a year for the results of any test to reach us. And the rest are much farther away by many orders of magnitude. For our galaxy alone the distance between ours and the nearest star is smaller by comparison than two hairs on your little finger’s knuckle as compared to your extended family having dinner in a restaurant.
When dealing with these kinds of things, we have to make do with the portions of physical evidence we can lay our hands on (probes landing on nearby planets, comets and asteroids; fossils we find and can only date and preserve; rocks we can date by radioactive decay), and lots of observations of what we can see. We can create models (computer and otherwise) to try and verify to a point the theories we come up with – we think the ones we come up with are the most likely, but there may be more than one equation that will fit a data curve.
I thought WIMPs was a term used for television… (Weekly Insipid Moronic Programming)
Then there’s the old final exam question: 3) Define the Universe, give three examples.
cerebulon said: “So, how about we take a second look at the apparent flaws of the Einsteinian theory, instead of coming up with some imaginary fix-it like “dark matter.””
If you’d read the article, you’d know that there are quite a few people out there doing exactly that.
It’s difficult, though, since Einstein’s theory of gravity is a very simple, coherent, whole based on just a couple of mathematical ideas, and it tests out very well in the great majority of cases it’s been applied to. It’s extremely difficult to tweak it a little bit without breaking it in a way that blatantly contradicts old observations. But still, people are trying, because nobody is satisfied with the current situation in which we have little more than a label for our ignorance.
We have our theories and our observations, and there’s a glitch where the former don’t seem to account for the latter. There are several ways of fixing the glitch, and the most obvious one is to guess that there’s mass that our telescopes are missing. People are pursuing that (and some very recent evidence, which was reported in both Science and Nature news, suggests that it may be for real), but it’s frustrating, because we don’t know what that stuff is and may not know for some time. Other ways of fixing the glitch exist, and people are pursuing those, too. It’s an active area of research, and the debate among physicists is far, far more involved than could possibly be described in an article like this. Keep that in mind when you’re reading popular articles about complex issues. 99% of the information has been filtered out in order to give you a good read.
The difference between the way science deals with such things and the way religion deals with them is that, in science, just having a label for our ignorance is considered the beginning of understanding, while in religion it often seems like it’s the end. The term “Dark matter” is like a huge flag for physicists that says, “Look here! Something cool we haven’t figured out! First one to get it has a shot at a Nobel prize!” And, predictably, people are scrambling to figure it out, and there’s a whole pile of possible solutions that need to be investigated.
A lot of comments seem to make the assumption that scientists saw something they didn’t understand, labelled it “dark matter,” and then went on, pretending to understand it. The real situation is nothing of the kind.
Here is a totaly un-scientific theory.
Have you seen a ray of sunlight falling from window to across the room? In this beam of sunlight you can sometimes see floating particles of dust, even though the room is clean, and with out this bright concentrated beam of light the suspended particals are invisibe to the naked eye.
I propose that dark matter is simply space dust, unlit for whatever reason, maybe in shadow, between the planets /stars. It would be super fine similar to graphite or talc, and enough of it could block out light or obscure vision.
Then again it could be Gods shadow if you lean thataway, or a cosmic invisibility field put on by UFOs/alien species, to blind us to their presence. LOL. ;)
I think they proved that Dark Matter does exist and that they have pictures of it.. in fact.. it is in another Damn Interesting Article…. so… i think this may be moot.
The same could have been said of Newtonian physics when relativity was being debated. We now understand that different rules apply at very small scales. Why shouldn’t the same be true of very large scales?
Want to know dark matter what is ?
The solution I know
Ask yoda we should !
…may the ‘dark’ force be with you
51st! Yes!
What is the mind? no matter… What is matter? never mind…