Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space

Dark Matter Is Even More of a Mystery Than Expected 236

schwit1 writes: Using the Hubble and Chandra space telescopes astronomers have discovered that dark matter is not only invisible to direct observation, it is invisible to itself! Quoting: "As two galactic clusters collide, the stars, gas and dark matter interact in different ways. The clouds of gas suffer drag, slow down and often stop, whereas the stars zip past one another, unless they collide — which is rare. On studying what happens to dark matter during these collisions, the researchers realized that, like stars, the colliding clouds of dark matter have little effect on one another. Thought to be spread evenly throughout each cluster, it seems logical to assume that the clouds of dark matter would have a strong interaction — much like the colliding clouds of gas as the colliding dark matter particles should come into very close proximity. But rather than creating drag, the dark matter clouds slide through one another seamlessly." The data here is on the very edge of reality, built on too many assumptions. We know that something undetected as yet is influencing the motions of galaxies, but what exactly it is remains completely unknown. These results only make the mystery more mysterious.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Dark Matter Is Even More of a Mystery Than Expected

Comments Filter:
  • WIMPs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:31PM (#49358157) Homepage

    Isn't this what one would expect if dark matter is WIMPs?

    • Re:WIMPs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:47PM (#49358255)

      Isn't this what one would expect if dark matter is WIMPs?

      Indeed. I don't think that any of this is new. The reason dark matter was hypothesized in the first place was because of the behavior of colliding galaxies, such as the Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org]. The missing mass couldn't be stars, because it didn't emit light, it couldn't be gas or dust, because it didn't experience drag, so it must be either WIMPS or MACHOs [wikipedia.org]. Further observations ruled out the MACHOs. So what is new about this observation?

      • Re:WIMPs (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:47PM (#49358535) Homepage

        That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".

        Dark energy on the other hand, that's just WEIRD ;) It doesn't act like any "energy" as we know it, even though everything is clearly moving into a higher energy state. A question I've had for a while... if space itself is being inflated (or any sort of mathematically equivalent scenario) - everything inflating in all directions at all scales - wouldn't there be some sort of weak radiation signal from electrons expanding into a higher energy state due to dark energy and then collapsing back down? But I have trouble picturing how to reconcile an absolute, varying distance at the atomic scale with quantization of energy states, positions, etc...

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          From what I understand, currently dark energy is too weak to have local effects, with local being as large as our local cluster of galaxies.
          Some do postulate that it will (continue to) increase to the point it will overcome all forces ripping even atoms apart.

        • Re:WIMPs (Score:4, Interesting)

          by lgw ( 121541 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @10:04PM (#49359093) Journal

          Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant - I guess it's a better name if it's not actually constant, but the cosmologists I've seen talking about it don't like the new name either (not that anyone has a better suggestion, really). The key thing about it is that the energy density of it is insanely low - I suspect that on the quantum scale it actually "rounds to 0" the way things can in QM, where no measurement is possible at that scale. I think even at the scale of our galaxy it's a very tiny effect. It's a testament to how sparse matter really is in the universe that dark matter is the dominant effect overall.

          • Re:WIMPs (Score:4, Insightful)

            by foreverdisillusioned ( 763799 ) on Saturday March 28, 2015 @02:34AM (#49359855) Journal

            Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant

            You know, I'm as happy as anyone else that physicists have been able to do so much with their models, but what kind of navel-gazing mathurbation is this?

            Dark energy is an observed physical phenomenon.

            The cosmological constant is a term in an equation. It's a very good equation, mind you, but a lot of very good equations have later turned out to be wrong or good for only a special class of phenomena. Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything. It's also worth noting that the cosmological constant was supposed to predict a force that would hold the universe together. Dark energy is a force that is tearing the universe apart. Someone clever pointed out that hey, that works if you just flip the sign of the cosmological constant but I'm not sure I'd call that a win.

            And regardless, I don't think it's reasonable to imply that the territory is imitating the map.

            • by Altrag ( 195300 )

              what kind of navel-gazing mathurbation is this?

              Its the kind of mathurbation that happens when someone looks at the "dark energy" in real data.. tries to match it with the equations.. and discovers that it exactly fits what Einstein's cosmological constant would have done if he hadn't rejected the idea at the start.

              The reason there are two different names is because it came from two different sources (one data, one math). A bit of a "holy shit even Einstein didn't realize how smart Einstein was" moment. The second paragraph of the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] (so

              • I need to figure out what all of that subscript means and meditate on it sometime. To me, "constant" is just some fiddly fucking detail utterly lacking in profoundness. Like the thing you forget to tack on at the end of an indefinite integration. But that one doesn't look easily separable. So... hm.

                My gut still says that if the constant was predicted to be a negative value and turned out to be a specific positive value, that is in no way a slam-dunk. I've also heard some talk about it not remaining cons
                • by Bengie ( 1121981 )

                  still no confirmation of gravitational waves

                  This is a peculiar one. While we have not directly detected gravitational waves, when watching a binary neutron star, the orbits degrade exactly as predicted if gravitational waves exist. No other known theory would give this exact effect.

            • by lgw ( 121541 )

              Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything.

              You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. Science isn't in the business of proof; proof is the realm of mathematics and formal logic. One can prove that one equation, or other statement in a formal language, is equivalent to another under some axioms. Once cannot prove anything about the universe we inhabit.

              Science is in the business of useful, predictive models. Dark matter and energy are both "dark" in the sense that we don't have one of those yet. We can characterize them, and there's been some real pro

              • You've got that backwards, I'm afraid. Science isn't in the business of proof; proof is the realm of mathematics and formal logic.

                Except there are a vast number of physics equations describing universes that do not exist--Higgs-less models, for example, can probably be tossed in the trash at this point. They are mathematically sound. There is no formal logical flaw with them. But they do not match reality.

                Math proofs are meaningless without physical observations to back them up.

                • by mbone ( 558574 )

                  Math proofs are meaningless without physical observations to back them up.

                  Fully agree. And, as it happens, General Relativity has a massive amount of physical observation backing it up, and no physical observations contradicting* it.

                  * If you believe in MOND / TeVeS, then the dark matter observations contradict GR. Let's just say that there is not yet consensus around that view.

            • by mbone ( 558574 )

              Dark energy is just the latest name for the Cosmological Constant

              You know, I'm as happy as anyone else that physicists have been able to do so much with their models, but what kind of navel-gazing mathurbation is this?

              Dark energy is an observed physical phenomenon.

              The cosmological constant is a term in an equation. It's a very good equation, mind you, but a lot of very good equations have later turned out to be wrong or good for only a special class of phenomena. Equations can predict, but they don't prove anything. It's also worth noting that the cosmological constant was supposed to predict a force that would hold the universe together. Dark energy is a force that is tearing the universe apart. Someone clever pointed out that hey, that works if you just flip the sign of the cosmological constant but I'm not sure I'd call that a win.

              This is physics. Everything is a term in an equation.

              The cosmological constant is the only free parameter in Einstein's equations. The. Only. One. And, it fits exactly all of the available data. Unless and until that changes, there is no good reason to believe to believe that we do not live in a de Sitter space.

        • That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".

          I dunno. Usually when a theory requires more and more unseen entities over time it's a sign that it's time to replace the theory. We know General Relativity is incomplete, both because it doesn't take into account quantum effects and because it has internal contradictions - specifically, it assumes a continuous spacetime geometry but predicts non-continuous points (black hole singularitie

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            Could you elaborate on what you mean by "alter orbital structure and energy levels"? Are you saying that the energy level of, say, ground state would increase with time? If so that sounds... weird. And sounds like *that* should have detectable consequences too, if so.

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            One thing that dark energy can't be is *all* fundamental constants, plus position, velocity, etc scaling up evenly. Because if such was the case then there would be no perceptible change.

            If youe saying that for example what is ground state would change too then it seems like you're arguing that things at the quantum level *aren't* moving into higher energy states. But things at the macroscopic level absolutely are moving into a higher energy state. So are you arguing that dark energy doesn't act on the quan

          • by mbone ( 558574 )

            That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".

            I dunno. Usually when a theory requires more and more unseen entities over time it's a sign that it's time to replace the theory. We know General Relativity is incomplete, both because it doesn't take into account quantum effects and because it has internal contradictions - specifically, it assumes a continuous spacetime geometry but predicts non-continuous points (black hole singularities).

            That is not thought to be an internal contradiction of General Relativity, as, even though GR does have singularities, thanks to event horizons and cosmological censorship, there are no known cases where you can use these singularities to derive multiple different estimates of the same observational quantity (which is what having an inconsistent physical model means). I don't believe that there are any mathematical proofs of this, but I suspect you would have to come up with a counter-example if you wanted

        • That the thing about dark matter... it has a perfectly reasonable explanation (WIMPs). It's not that weird of a "thing".

          Having one solution does not suffice, you need to prove it. WIMPs have been proposed, but they require Supersymmetry (which is not proven), and also WIMPs have never been detected in particle accelerators. Dark matter is a weird thing, because one way or another, you need new physics which does not interact using the strong force or electromagnetism, is present already in the very early Universe (380000 years after the Big Bang).

        • by mbone ( 558574 )

          That's exactly backwards.

          The WIMP miracle is over; unless the LHC finds success with its Hail Mary pass, interest in WMPs will inevitably decline, and people will look (are looking) at other explanations for Dark Matter.

          Dark Energy, on the other hand, is just a cosmological constant. Nothing mysterious (from a General Relativistic standpoint) about it at all.

      • Re:WIMPs (Score:4, Informative)

        by Bite The Pillow ( 3087109 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @10:11PM (#49359111)

        You didn't like the Wikipedia article for WIMPs. But since you put the other two as Wikipedia articles, I assume you consider it a valid source.

        However, recent null results from direct detection experiments including LUX and SuperCDMS, along with the failure to produce evidence of supersymmetry in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment[2][3] has cast doubt on the simplest WIMP hypothesis.[4]

        The answer isn't just "WIMPs", but a special kind of WIMP, or not one at all.

        What's new?

        The results, published in the journal Science on 27 March 2015, show that dark matter interacts with itself even less than previously thought, and narrows down the options for what this mysterious substance might be.

        I don't have the article in the mail yet, but I'm guessing that's new. At the very least, Weakly Interacting is now Really Weakly Interacting.

        • by mbone ( 558574 )

          I don't have the article in the mail yet, but I'm guessing that's new. At the very least, Weakly Interacting is now Really Weakly Interacting.

          Here you go [spacetelescope.org].

          From my perspective, it hardly changes a thing (it lowers the cross section / mass constraint a little, but not even an order of magnitude). But, then, I'm not a WIMP guy.

    • Re:WIMPs (Score:4, Informative)

      by TMB ( 70166 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:21PM (#49358417)

      Yes.

      There are actually many proposed extensions to the standard model that predict dark matter particles that would be classified as WIMPs, and there are some others where the interaction is not through the weak force but through a "hidden sector" force. Some of the possible parameter space of some those hidden sector models predict a cross-section that they would have been able to detect in this experiment. So this is indeed a useful result -- it does rule out some possibilities. But they're not necessarily the possibilities that most people would be betting on anyway, so the headline is overhyped.

      [TMB]

    • by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @07:51PM (#49358561) Journal

      Thought to be spread evenly throughout each cluster, it seems logical to assume that the clouds of dark matter would have a strong interaction

      It would actually be completely illogical to assume that precisely BECAUSE Dark Matter is spread evenly through each cluster. If it had a strong self interaction then, just like matter, it would bump into itself and coalesce into clumps just like that other strongly, self interacting stuff we call matter. The fact that Dark Matter has a completely different mass distribution than ordinary matter is clear evidence that it does not have a large self interaction cross-section...and we have had direct evidence of this since the Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org] was discovered.

      It's always nice to have more confirmation but since another recent story on the same site was talking about the "new" possibility of invisible Higgs decays to Dark Matter particles (something we looked for 15+ years ago at the Tevatron as well as the previous Run 1 of the LHC) I have to wonder if the writers of the site have suffered extreme time dilation for the past decade or two.

    • Isn't this what one would expect if dark matter is WIMPs?

      No... you're thinking of Dork Matter.

      Just kidding. But that was a great "straight line".

    • I parsed the summary like this:

      1. The gravity of dark matter affects luminous matter (we knew this.)

      2. The gravity of dark matter doesn't affect other dark matter (...wtf?)

      That would have been... interesting.

      But I made the mistake of clicking the article and it looks like they're just talking about kinetic interactions (no observed slowdown due to "friction" between separately moving clouds.) I guess it's news, but given that we're already pretty sure it doesn't interact with baryonic matter (ex
    • by mbone ( 558574 )

      No. This really applies _to_ WIMPs. It doesn't apply to condensed dark matter, or to axions.

  • by Irate Engineer ( 2814313 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:37PM (#49358197)
    Ahem; that's "Matter of Color", thank you very much.
  • If there is a vacuum in space, would their need to be a corresponding antivacuum?
    • Re:Supersymmetry ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:51PM (#49358273)

      If there is a vacuum in space, would their need to be a corresponding antivacuum?

      No. Because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there can never be a complete vacuum. Even if there was, you couldn't measure it without destroying it.
       

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      If there is a vacuum in space, would their need to be a corresponding antivacuum?

      There is an antivacuum in the universe . . . more specifically, in my apartment.

      At least that is what my cleaning girl claims . . . when she tries to vacuum here . . .

      • If there is a vacuum in space, would their need to be a corresponding antivacuum?

        There is an antivacuum in the universe . . . more specifically, in my apartment.

        At least that is what my cleaning girl claims . . . when she tries to vacuum here . . .

        An antivacuum is usually called 'gas'.

        • by Nemyst ( 1383049 )
          I'm guessing the GP also farts a lot then.
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          More likely "plasma" which is much more common then "gas"

          • Right, but plasmas are a bit thin on the ground where humans live and humans are the ones who call things things. There may be aliens who call plasmas and gasses things, but they probably have different words for them. "No Fnakquar, an antivacuum is called a 'congressman' " or some such.

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      Leaf blower... ...in space!

  • Just partially kidding...

    Paul B.

  • is it real? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:52PM (#49358281)

    isn't there a good chance that the dark matter theory is incorrect, and was created to account for an error in certain physics equations? Mb dark matter is so invisible because it doesn't actually exist?

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      Of course there's a chance, but it doesn't look like a 'good' chance. If the dark matter hypothesis is wrong, it's likely wrong yet highly insightful in the same way that Newtonian gravity is wrong.

    • For my next exam, if I get x==3 as a result and I know it should be x==100, I'll just define dark_x = 97.
      Done!

  • by Jaborandy ( 96182 ) on Friday March 27, 2015 @06:56PM (#49358303)

    It really bothers me to see quotes like this one: "There is more dark matter in the Universe than visible matter, but it is extremely elusive."

    That's so matter of fact, and leaves no room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong. I feel that the certainty level around our understanding of this topic is low enough that it isn't fair to competing theories to say things like that as if they are observed fact. In fact, we've never detected dark matter. We infer its existence from a number of things that don't add up gravitationally without it, indicating we're missing something. Dark matter that interacts gravitationally allows us to model a universe that adds up, if only this invisible stuff were distributed just so.

    This article shows yet another data point indicating that dark matter may not exist, because of how it continues to not react with stuff, just as it would if it weren't there at all. I don't mean to say that it's 100% wrong, but I think it's unfair to say with 100% certainty that it's true either. Shouldn't we as scientists be more careful with our words, and say that dark matter is BELIEVED to make up more of the universe than does visible matter, based on our current leading theories? I think being careful with what we know and how well we know it is important to maintaining trust with the public and with each-other.

    --Jaborandy

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Indeed. I've always wondered why there's an automatic assumption that matter of some sort must be causing these excess gravitational effects that are popularly associated with dark matter. I believe there's just as much merit to the idea that our understanding of gravity is simply wrong, and that it can exist absent of matter. I would think of it as space time curvature that is inherent to the universe. Matter would naturally "fall in" to these wrinkles of the fabric in space time, and perhaps that is w

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        There isn't any such assumption. Go look up MOND. Dark matter is just the best match we've come up with so far that fits the data.

        So anyone who isn't actively researching exactly that topic may as well go with the prevailing best match. It might turn out to be wrong, but its at least less wrong than the next best match. And certainly less wrong than just ignoring the data because you don't happen to like the term that was coined to describe it.

    • yeah. that could work.
    • Dark matter is stuff that behaves like matter but isn't visible. Dark energy is stuff that behaves like energy, but isn't visible. When you know that, it makes sense.

      "Dark Matter" is a placeholder for "whatever the hell is causing this".

      There is more "whatever the hell is causing this" than visible matter.

      That is so matter of fact, and it leaves no room for... wait, it leaves a lot of room for a description of "whatever the hell is causing this".

      This article shows yet another data point indicating that da

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      Scientists (with perhaps a few exceptions) leave room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong. Uninformed journalists - not so much.

      Given how old this 'insight' is, I think it comes from the latter group.

    • by dbIII ( 701233 )

      That's so matter of fact, and leaves no room for the possibility that the theory of dark matter is wrong

      Yes.
      Gravitational effects show that something is there which we cannot see.
      That's the bit that's treated as a matter of fact. What that stuff actually may be is where we don't have anything that can be treated on the level of facts.
      So we are certain that something is there but not certain as to what it is, apart from ruling out a lot of things that should make sense but don't fit (dust, brown dwarfs etc)

    • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      The reason people assume Dark Matter exists is because the implications of it not existing is even more absurd. It's the lesser of two evils, by a lot.
  • Here some someone with a propeller beanie on his head will tell me that dark matter must exist because "math"... which is fine only "math" is not actually evidence of something being there absent emperical evaluation because even if the numbers add up a certain way so do orbital epicycles.... and they were bullshit.

    A pitfall of the "math" argument is that if you have some very clever people come up with some very clever theories they can confuse Tolken-like world building with "reality".

    The justification fo

    • Yes, dark matter and dark energy are convenient constructs to make our existing models fit.

      When they find data that doesn't fit the constructs, then scientists have two choices:
      1) Change the constructs
      2) Change the model.

      They're usually going to choose #1 because Occum's Razor prefers #1. They won't go with #2 until there's a sufficient body of evidence that the constructs are completely wrong. Until then, it's just going to be more tweaking and retweaking of the constructs.

      Now, when I say "they", I don't m

      • If I were handing out funding grants, I'd be less interested in doing it on the dark matter energy research and more interested in throwing the money at seeing if there isn't a model that doesn't require such "constructs".

        The whole thing reads like epicycles to me. Those curly cue micro orbits that they used to think our planets traveled in to explain their movement.

        And that only went away when they realized the earth wasn't the center of the solar system but rather it was the sun itself.

        I'm not an astrophy

        • by Altrag ( 195300 )

          Plan 1: Come up with reasonable hypothesis. Build math that works with it. Build detectors to test it. A negative result is still a result.

          Plan 2: Throw up our hands because if we can't immediately get an answer then why even try.

          You seem to be preferring plan 2.

          And yes, there is research into alternate theories. Plenty of it with MOND being the biggest/most well-known competitor. But so far none of them have come close to matching the accuracy of dark matter theories so there's no much point spendin

    • "The justification for dark matter is unexplained gravity"

      You imply that this is the *only* justification. Is this because you are unaware of the rest pf physics or because you are trying to mislead others about the rest of physics?

    • "It could mean our theories of gravitation are wrong" versus "there's something exerting gravity that we can't see any other way yet with our current instruments".
      I know which head I'd put the fucking insulting "propeller beanie" on. Questioning is one thing, ridicule another.
      Looks like you don't just despise climate scientists but all of them. What broken corner of society is turning out people spreading the drivel like this idiot's posting history? We need to prop it up with more jobs, better education
  • Matter and energy are convertible one into the other. Is what scientists call dark matter/dark energy the same as "zero point energy"? Zero point energy is what is left in a container that has been emptied of all matter and then cooled to absolute zero. This energy has been measured and verified to exist. It pervades all space, including the spaces between the particles of atoms. Zero point energy is what limits how much a signal can be amplified and is the reason why liquid helium cannot be made solid with

    • by TMB ( 70166 )

      That was what was first assumed. There's only one minor problem.

      The amount of zero point energy is *120 orders of magnitude* larger than the measured magnitude of dark energy. And dark energy has about 3x the energy density of dark matter.

      So, despite the fact that it looks like zero point energy, there's something else going on.

      [TMB]

  • That Dark Matter is a real thing and not just a "theory"? Do we have any proof yet? I know there is a lot of intel coming in on it, but it is hard to keep up with and/or follow.
    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      its an hypothesis and a model attempting to explain some weird stuff we're observing. Its probably wrong, but its a starting point. A bit like the early earth centric models of the solar system originally (that actually ended up giving the correct results, even though they were wrong)

      • by Altrag ( 195300 )

        Funny thing is that epicycles weren't "wrong" (within the limits of measurement capability of the time.) They were just not the simplest way to do the computations.

        To work with a sun-centric model you have to (in your imagination) translate yourself from the Earth to the center of the sun, figure out where the planets should be, then translate those planet coordinates back into Earth coordinates.

        Epicycles is essentially combining those steps into a single set of equations. It'll be ugly and complex as hel

    • by Livius ( 318358 )

      That Mass is a real thing and not just a "theory"? Do we have any proof yet? I know there is almost no intel coming in on it, so it is easy to keep up with and/or follow.

  • Dark Matter seems to me to be a placeholder item for differences between the calculated trajectories and real.

    It do adjust for the effects observed but it does not explain what it really is.

  • I was wondering if dark matter could be matter in a 4 (or more)-dimensional space, so instead of coordinates x,y,z it is w,x,y,z. Ordinary matter is at w=0, while dark matter has some distance to ordinary matter in this 4th dimension. Adding a 4th dimension to gravity formulas is straightforward. We would feel the gravity of such matter on distances comparable to the w value of this matter.
    If the dark matter's w value would become similar to ours it would suddenly appear in our 3-dimensional space. Since
    • And the dark matter of 2 galaxies could be other galaxies in different universes. They would only collide if they are in the same universe, or "plane" in the 4th dimension.
    • To make it more confusing, could that 4th dimension be the time? Meaning that a galaxy feels gravity from itself in earlier times.
      Because of relativity this long-term gravitational effect has to move linearly with the objects through space, so it would kind of wobble with the galaxies when they moving relative to each other. When the galaxies collide the past gravitational effect would keep moving linearly.
      Objects of all sizes would have this effect. But since planets moves around stars and stars don't mo
    • by Altrag ( 195300 )

      Yep. Entirely plausible. Even been considered by actual real scientists.

      But since any testing of 4+ spatial dimensions is beyond our capabilities as 3 dimensional beings, those theories tend to get shelved as interesting mathematical models while we concentrate more on theories that may possibly lead to results eventually.

      Of course if the alternate dimension theory is actually the right one, we may be spending a lot of time barking up the wrong tree.. but since we will never be able to tell if its the rig

  • What if, like in OpenGL when you set the near and far clipping planes too far apart, you begin to lose precision on calculations at distances farthest away from the camera. The same thing happens at a certain point when you examine something near the camera too closely; you observe the limit of the floats describing the modelview matrix. This assumes of course that the universe is a simulation and that, being a part of the simulation, we "can't see the forest for all the trees". It might explain the discrep
  • The lack of evidence for dark matter is becoming kind of embarrassing to the theory. Anything that should provide direct evidence doesn't - dark matter is seemingly only necessary to explain large-scale gravitational behavior, but is not otherwise in evidence.

    For me, as a layman, dark matter was never persuasive: "there's this stuff that only has an effect way out there where we need it, but has no local effect where it would screw up our nice models". Sure there is. There are other theories that seem to be

  • They are both "Dark" because they do not exist. This article is a perfect case example of how Dark Matter would have to be distributed in a manor that generally ignores gravity itself. If it ignores the influence of gravity then how is it that its properties are defined by its influence on other objects through gravitational attraction? Do they really think that it can pull on things but ignore its own pull towards that non-dark matter?

Houston, Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed. -- Neil Armstrong

Working...