this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
1333 points (96.4% liked)
memes
9806 readers
8 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Maybe it's time to admit that maybe Dark Matter doesn't exist, and we need a different hypothesis to explain the universe?
Other than the fact that it/some of it was probably detected in 2023 and all the models do mostly work. Plus the LHC proved the existence of the Higgs Boson.
This? https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a46807202/dark-matter-cosmic-web/
Is this really dark matter, or just more evidence of where the current physics modelling is incorrect?
Either way, the solution is more science.
Yes. Of course.
I was just taking issue with the phrase "probably detected" and would instead say "effects were better observed".
"Probably" don't cut it chief
Neutrinos are an unknown science that we still know so very little about. There are hypotheses that say neutrinos could be the missing dark matter, but they are fringe. Once we have a reliable way of detecting them it would unlock all sorts of secrets of the very early universe - think microwave background radiation except with neutrinos.
Dark matter must travel slowly compared to light. Neutrinos are fast.
But could neutrinos be dark energy?
That seems a bit silly considering how much evidence we have for it. That's an awful lot of work to throw away for no great reason.
Evidence such as?
It's not my job to educate you on what could be a brief Google search. Stop being such a cynic. The gravitational lens distortion of distant galaxies is basically impossible without dark matter. Not to parrot the mantra of conspiracy theorists and cultists, but do your own research.
... using our current model of the Universe.
Dark matter, and dark energy in particular, were introduced to make existing models fit the data.
And we will keep using it until we have a better model
Which we don't, for that matter
You're speaking as if scientists aren't constantly trying to create new, better models that fit the data better.
I have no problem with the scientists searching for better models.
It's the scientists talking about dark matter like it's as established as an electron whereas dark matter and energy is more like aether.
The entire evidence for dark matter (and dark energy) has been generated by matching data to models we are sure are incorrect (quantum gravity).
Seriously though.
I'm no great physicist, but dark matter and dark energy sound like the ether of our times.
Hypothetical constructs to pluck the holes of misunderstanding the Universe.
Honestly same