this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
1689 points (95.2% liked)

Science Memes

10988 readers
1835 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1689
bro pls (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
282 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I would argue that we have evidence for which the theory of dark matter and dark energy is a fairly suitable theory.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's all any theory in physics is. You don't see an electron, you observe what it does.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, yes, but my point was that we don't have evidence specifically for the existence of dark matter.

We have evidence that is not explained by visible, detectable mass.

Dark matter is the current favored theory which happens to explain discrepancies between what is observed and what is expected.

But I don't think we can logically conclude dark matter is the only explanation, which is what your original statement seems to imply. It is the best explanation that we have so far.

If we place objects on the dining table the night before and observed them lying on the floor the next morning, we can't claim "we have evidence for sleepwalking residents." There may be another theory that explains it, such as: the cat is knocking the things off the table. We need additional evidence to determine which theory fits or else come up with a new theory.

Hopefully I am making sense here lol

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But it is visible, it's visible in terms of gravitational effects. We can "see" the effects of dark matter. That is evidence specifically for dark matter, i.e. matter that is very hard or impossible to detect via the electromagnetic spectrum but is observable through gravity.

Dark matter is the explanation, the question is more what form does it take.

It just takes a bit of acknowledgement that actually the EM spectrum is not the only way to view the universe. In fact it's just one of four (maybe five) fundamental forces. We're just used to that being the default for seeing because it's how we physically see. It's an anthropocentric bias to say something doesn't exist because we can't view it via EM radiation despite the fact gravity is clearly showing it to us.

You could use your logic to argue against the existence of black holes. We don't see them by definition but they are most certainly there.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I meant "visible" as in EM spectrum.

We can "see" the effects of dark matter.

I am well aware and I have already said as much.

I'm not sure why you're missing my point.

Wikipedia:

"In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears to not interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen,..."

Unless you're aware of some case where dark matter has interacted with light or EM fields?

So we see these gravitational effects that either means general relativity falls apart under conditions we have yet to identify or there is more mass than we can detect with the EM spectrum.

I'm not arguing against the existence of dark matter. You're misunderstanding my intent.

I'm not even arguing. I'm just pointing out that your original statement isn't quite correct.

But Dark Matter is a great scientific theory. It probably will hold up. I can't wait to see what we learn next!

Anyway I probably shouldn't have even responded because it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things and my thumbs are tired from arguing against bigoted assholes in other places (I'm on a phone) so... peace

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I would argue that Wikipedia is wrong or misguided. There is no serious debate about whether or not dark matter exists. I also think you've completely missed the point of my argument regarding the EM field just being only one way to detect the existence of things.