New Hubble Release Puts Another Nail In the Coffin of Dark Matter's Competitors (spacetelescope.org) 274
StartsWithABang writes: When it comes to the structure of the Universe — forming the galaxies, clusters, and Universe as we see it — the normal matter we know of simply isn't enough. Given our best-understood laws of physics, including Einstein's general relativity, what we see of galaxies and the Universe in general simply doesn't match up to our predictions. The simplest solution, arguably, is to just add a new ingredient: a new form of matter, a dark matter if you will. But a counterargument is that we've got the laws of gravity wrong, and that no new matter is necessary. There's only one way to settle an argument like this: with data, evidence and the full suite of observations at our disposal. The newest Hubble release, along with four other independent lines of evidence, rule out modifications of gravity and leave dark matter as the only option standing.
Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
Dark matter is still handwavium. The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model we use doesn't work.
Gravity leak from other dimensions? (Score:2)
I am sure the possibility must have been explored that "dark matter" and "dark energy" originate in other dimensions. Is there clear evidence to discount this?
Re:Gravity leak from other dimensions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If it does not interact electromagnetically it must be transparent.
Re:Gravity leak from other dimensions? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If that were so, it wouldn't produce gravitational lensing. And it does, because that's the main argument that it exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually yes.
If something doesn't interact electromagnetically it must be transparent. The reverse isn't true of course, but that wasn't claim.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my favorite explanation.
Note that unlike Ockham, I think we should go with the most fun of the hypotheses that haven't been ruled out, rather than the simplest.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean apart from the complete lack of evidence of other dimensions?
Duh, what about the evidence of gravity leak from other dimensions?
Re: (Score:2)
Some "miscellaneous shit we made up to fill a void" that explains the areas in which a theory that has been shown robust in many other areas doesn't work in is not the same as making something up that doesn't fill a void, doesn't make the existing theory work in some area it wasn't before, and doesn't offer any predictions.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think that would work when you skipped Physics 201 because it was too damned hard...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you. I can't believe GGP is at +4. I really don't understand what the fucking problem is for the /. crowd when it comes to dark matter.
Might as well argue that time dilation is handwavium and not being able to accelerate to the speed of light is a liberal conspiracy.
Fucking scientists. What do they know?
You must be new here. Everyone on /. is a Nobel laureate in waiting and knows more about physics from reading /. summaries and making quick, 30 second snap judgements than the people who write the papers the summaries are based on.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's true of everything. The only reason we know the sun exists is that if it isn't there our model for predicting what we should see
when we look up doesn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
We can detect the sun directly.
You're forgetting which site you're on.
For a lot of people here, the sun has the same level of reality as a girlfriend.
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model [which we have created based on our observations of the universe] we use doesn't work.
So... that'd be like... science, then?
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not saying it's science... but it's science.
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Informative)
The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model [which we have created based on our observations of the universe] we use doesn't work.
So... that'd be like... science, then?
THIS.
Not only that, but the entire concept of modern science is predicated on mathematical models of phenomena that can't be observed directly or explained in detail (at least at first).
Our classic history story of the Scientific Revolution often misses this point. We have this vision of people like Copernicus and Kepler and Galileo standing up against ignorant buffoons who refuse to recognize empiricism. But that wasn't it. Scientists had been doing empirical observation for thousands of years. Scientists after Copernicus rapidly (late 1500s) started looking for evidence of the earth's motion -- like stellar parallax and coriolis "forces." They couldn't measure any, and they ultimately weren't measured until the 1800s. That was a major impediment to the heliocentric theory.
But another one was Aristotle's theory of physics, which was wrapped up in detailed explanations of "causes" for everything. And everything in the universe had its "natural place" -- terrestrial matter was assumed to always come to rest, because that's what empirical observation shows us.
If the earth was in some sort of perpetual motion, what caused it? What maintained it? Why didn't the earth fly out of its orbit? Why couldn't we seem to measure it?
The first three questions were answered when Newton's theory of universal gravitation came along. There was this magical unseen force called "gravity," which kept the universe in order.
Many scientists, who believed solidly in empiricism, were highly skeptical of Newton's "occult" forces. (The word "occult" comes from the Latin meaning "hidden" or "unseen," and "occult" phenomena such as unseen forces like magnetism and gravity were associated with "magic" in the 1600s -- not "science" as we understand it.)
Newton responded to his critics by publishing an addendum to later editions of his Principia (usually known as the "General Scholium") which basically said, "Yeah -- those weird invisible 'forces'? I admit they might not be real. But the point is that the math works out, and thus this can be a model for scholarly investigation, even if we can't observe these forces directly or attribute an Aristotelean 'cause' to them."
THAT was really the crux of the Scientific Revolution. Many scientists came to accept Newton's theory, even before the first empirical evidence of heliocentrism (stellar aberration) was measured in the mid-1700s. The math worked, and thus the "model" worked. Even if we couldn't explain all the details, that was now "science."
The history of science after Newton is filled with stories of theories about stuff we couldn't observe directly (electrical charges, atom models, etc.), but which we assumed to exist because they were consistent with the math and the empirical observation. It's also filled with apparent "failures" of invisible things like phlogiston and luminiferous ether.
But those weren't really "failures" of science. They were theories based on rational empirical observation -- they may have lasted a little longer than they should have, but when they were first posited, they were reasonable explanations of what might be going on.
We STILL don't have a complete explanation for how the invisible force of gravity works. But it's well-accepted part of science. Dark matter is no different. Maybe someday it will go the way of phlogiston, but right now it's one of the best explanations around. The fact that dark matter was invented to serve a place in a mathematical explanatory model is the very definition of modern science.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit, now I wish I hadn't commented and just modded your post up instead.
This is a much better and more detailed answer than the one I attempted here [slashdot.org]
No mod points, but here, have a doughnut:
O
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I think that's pretty much what I said ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
on the other hand (Score:2)
The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model we use doesn't work.
If it is there the model works perfectly. We can see the effect it has on gravity, we just we don't know how to detect it directly.
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model we use doesn't work.
That's kind of how science works: you notice an effect, assume there is a cause, generate some guesses about what that cause might be, and then start weeding them out.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of physics is simply at the "placeholder" stage, as we know next to nothing about it - how does gravity work? How does magnetism work? We can say there are gravity waves and magnetic fields but we don't actually understand the underlying mechanisms of either, yet they form the cornerstones of a lot of our current understanding of the universe around us.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the more we learn, the less we know.
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Informative)
Dark matter is still handwavium. The best proof we have for it so far is that if it isn't there the model we use doesn't work.
No, it isn't.
If you're hunting for a bear and you find bear tracks, bear shit, bear claw marks on trees, and everything except for directly observing the bear itself, you don't say the bear is "handwavium" and all of the evidence was really caused by a mutant chicken just because you didn't "see" the bear itself.
Dark matter is exactly the same. We've measured. We've observed. The evidence points to some sort of weakly interacting/non-interacting form of matter. We can't "see" it, but we see the effects it has on everything else. It's the best and simplest explanation we have at the moment.
Now you may not like it. You may think there's a better explanation. But until you put forth your theory with evidence to the contrary that not only explains the current observations but also doesn't break current physics it's simply your unsubstantiated opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But we've never actually seen a bear, so it might as well be a mutant chicken.
Presumably we've never seen this "mutatnt chicken" thing either. So why don't we just call whatever we find a bear, since it will probably have the properties we're expecting (makes bear tracks, leaves bear poop);.
Re: (Score:3)
What if gravity just begins to beh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence points to some sort of weakly interacting/non-interacting form of matter.
The hypothesis of Dark Matter can not be taken seriously until there is some way to falsify it.
But until you put forth your theory with evidence to the contrary that not only explains the current observations but also doesn't break current physics it's simply your unsubstantiated opinion.
Dark Matter in fact DOES break current physics. There is no theory of matter that exists that can explain a mass that does not interact with anything and yet creates gravity.
Th universe is pure energy. "Condensing" this energy creates matter, which creates space-time. I would argue that our understanding of space-time is insufficient, not that our understanding of matter is insufficient.
Does this imply modificatio
Re: (Score:2)
"Observational science" has experiments too, they are predictions of future observations. For example when the theory came out that the meteorite killed the dinosaurs, it didn't stop with, "we observed this so this is the explanation". No, it allowed specific predictions such as, "If you look in this stratum in the rocks at the end of the Cretaceous period, you will find anomalous amounts of Iridium, shocked mineral grains, and other evidence of meteorite impact." Also when General Relativity was propose
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OP here. And you are, of course, correct. My understanding is that the discovery of the first Iridium anomaly led to the Impact Hypothesis, which then led to the further predictions including worldwide Iridium deposits in the Cretaceous boundary. I was lucky enough to see Walter Alvarez talk about it at the university here in the early 90's. I was writing pretty fast this morning and hoped no one would call me on it:), guess I'll be more careful next time! Hopefully this inaccuracy didn't detract form m
Re: (Score:2)
No, the best proof that we have is gravitational lensing by dark matter halos that have become separated from their associated galaxies after merger events.
Big 'ol concentration of mass with no visible matter = dark matter. The fact that you either weren't aware of the 'best proof' or cynically chose to omit it is irrelevant. It's still observational evidence that is not based up
Re:Handwavium (Score:5, Informative)
What.
No.
We have several empirical results that point to a decoupling of the majority of the mass in a galaxy from it's light emitting matter. The bullet cluster shows us two galaxies colliding, we can see the light from both galaxies coalescing around each other. By measuring gravitational lensing, we can also see that the majority of the mass of those galaxies passing right through each other without interacting.
We know beyond any reasonable doubt that the majority of the mass in the universe does not interact with regular matter, does not produce light, does not interact with light beyond gravitational lensing. That is literally the definition of what dark matter is. There are a handful of viable theories (probably only 2 or 3 likely ones) as to what form that matter takes, but that hardly means we don't have evidence of dark matter existing.
Re: (Score:2)
You can feel free to submit your theory of why the majority of the mass in the Bullet Cluster is passing right through and not interacting. It doesn't mean your theory is better though; that the unicorn farts are causing distortions in the light passing by the Bullet Cluster just making it appear that there is mass not in the visible area of the cluster that is bending the light.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct. Observations are not, as many laypersons and modern day positivists believe, completely independent, objective, things. They are necessarily biased by our assumptions and current understanding. As Hanson so succinctly put it: "There is more to seeing than meets the eyeball." More clearly "There is a sense, then, in which seeing is a ‘theory-laden’ undertaking. Observation of x is shaped by prior knowledge of x."
Brining this back to the topic:
Quine, rather embarrassingly, sug
Re: (Score:2)
Like Neptune!
Actually, like all the planets. And all the stars. We've never actually weighed any of them, but we know their masses because of their gravitational interaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Dark matter is a theory proposed to explain existing observations.
Science is not an absolute "this is how the world works". If you want absolute answers, turn to religion.
Science is an evolving process of "this is our best explanation for how the world works". There is no "proof" in science. Science is observe, measure, theorize, confirm. If you don't like the current theory of dark matter, feel free to propose your own theory that matches existing observations.
Calling it "handwavium" withou
Re: (Score:2)
Then come up with a better model that fits all of the observed data. (You'll probably win a Nobel Prize.)
That's how science works.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thank you. I just can't bring myself to accept dark matter as a viable option. It seems so ad hoc. It is only the best explanation given our current knowledge.
While I agree with you, I am forced to contemplate some of the speculations about how wormholes (if they do indeed exist) and warp drives created without massive singularities as drive components (Read: Impractical) could be constructed and the only working models that have not been ruled as impossible involve some magical stuff referred to as "Exotic matter" of which this dark matter is a proposed type. (This is Non-Baryonic matter I am referring to.) This means that there is more to matter than the standa
Re: Handwavium (Score:5, Funny)
The best argument against wormholes is that if they existed, the aliens would already be here.
On second thought, that might explain the Kardashians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Handwavium (Score:4, Interesting)
Realistically, wormholes or not, even a civilization limited to light speed travel should have been able to colonize or visit most of the galaxy in just a few million years with robotic exploration. So, it is looking like there is either no one else out there, or just as likely, there is some sort of barrier to intelligent civilizations being able to launch such an effort like colonization or robotic exploration.
Obviously, this all assumes that someone would have done all of this first. We might be either the first civilization at this point, or at the very least, a member of the "first wave" of civilizations where the other civilizations do exist, but their evidence has not yet arrived here. That scenario is just as likely as any other solution, but it is less useful because then we have nothing yet to look for in order to confirm our theory, so we tend to assume that we're not a member of "the First Ones".
There is also the idea that there may be a "Great Filter", which is some sort of event or situation that all intelligent species run into before they can do interstellar exploration. It could be something like nuclear holocaust or self-destruction being inevitable, or as simple as running out of available energy to be able to maintain high technology before they could start the program. Or some combination.
Nuclear war, unfortunately, is probably inevitable. It is a more distant threat than it used to be, but the weapons are all still there, and even pariah states like North Korea have working weapons. While those states remain somewhat rational, we're probably fine, but the stakes are pretty high.
Another possibility is simple overheating. Here I'm not exactly talking about Global Warming as caused by carbon emissions, but actual generation of heat by releasing it through energy production as waste heat. Solar energy doesn't help us with this because increased capture of solar radiation will increase waste heat on Earth. Eventually, carbon dioxide or not, we might simply add more waste heat to the planet than the Earth can actually radiate out into space. In that sense, I am very much a believer in AGW, although that scenario is probably more remote in time than a CO2 based greenhouse effect. Eventually, the Earth will need a giant heat sink if we want modern civilization for ever increasing numbers of people.
Re: (Score:3)
"or just as likely, there is some sort of barrier to intelligent civilizations being able to launch such an effort like colonization or robotic exploration." That barrier is called "politicians". You could also include the rest of the non-intelligent members of civilizations, but mostly politicians. Since robotic explorers haven't reached our solar system, this is merely proof that politicians are universal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean traversable wormholes. Wormholes can certainly still exist without aliens being here if they convert any aliens to random energy when the aliens attempt to access them.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Reference to whether or not "FTL" is possible in physics almost always means communication of information and movement of mass/energy at faster than light speeds. There are all sorts of ways of thinking you have something moving faster than light that fails to do move information or mass & energy (marques, or the crossing point of a astronomical sized pair of scissors). Quantum entanglement provides no means of moving energy or information at faster than light speeds, even though though there appears
Re: Handwavium (Score:4)
This is true. No matter how many times I see spooky action at a distance explained to not be FTL communication method, someone still thinks it can be a FTL communication method.
That said, FTL is not only movement of information at FTL speeds, it is movement of information at speeds which are FTL relative to other points. So yes, if there was a way to warp space-time so that a normal light speed EM wave simply had a shorter distance to go, that's still FTL communication.
Of course, since no one has demonstrated that warping space time is possible in that manner, and wormholes (while still not ruled out) appear to require a sort of exotic matter that is unlikely to exist, FTL is very much a goal with fiction wrapped around it, rather than science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Entanglement does not enable instantaneous communication over distance.
Entanglement does not involve FTL transfer of information.
Entanglement does not violate causality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
So was the hypothesis of the neutrino before it was actually detected. You see, there was this anomaly in the beta decay spectrum and it was hypothesized that the missing energy was carried away by this particle called a neutrino. Decades later the neutrino was actually detected. In what way is dark matter different?
Re: Handwavium (Score:5, Interesting)
So was the hypothesis of the neutrino before it was actually detected. You see, there was this anomaly in the beta decay spectrum and it was hypothesized that the missing energy was carried away by this particle called a neutrino. Decades later the neutrino was actually detected. In what way is dark matter different?
The neutrino hypothesis included some very specific property values for the particle, and possible ways it could be detected. Dark matter, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
It's odd how quickly people forget that. Hell, that's why the discovery was so important - it helped to give information supporting one of several theories. Did nobody watch the plethora of documentaries on the subject? They were all terrible but they were at least careful to explain it was just one of the theories that had been proposed.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually only 23% of the universe is Dark Matter. 70+% of the Universe is Dark Energy, which is something believed to not be directly related to Dark Matter except in that we have labeled both of them as "dark".
The (likely) reasons we don't detect it on Earth are:
1. It is believed to clump in specific areas of galaxies. The density of dark matter in "our" part of the galaxy is extremely low. This is borne out by observations of other galaxies.
2. It is supposed to be very difficult to detect to begin with
Re: Handwavium (Score:4)
So was the hypothesis of the neutrino before it was actually detected. You see, there was this anomaly in the beta decay spectrum and it was hypothesized that the missing energy was carried away by this particle called a neutrino. Decades later the neutrino was actually detected. In what way is dark matter different?
So were Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto, which were all known (or at least strongly supposed) to exist because the orbits of the outer planets weren't quite what they should be if there wasn't another massive body out there.
Re: Handwavium (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone else said, dark matter is an ad hoc solution. We don’t have direct measurement of it. We just have a phenomenon, and we’re trying to come up with different possible explanations and then rule some out.
Currently, dark matter is the leading theory because it explains all the data and it’s also the SIMPLEST explanation.
This doesn’t mean that dark matter theory is TRUE. But as explanatory models, it is RELIABLE. Keep in mind that science can never prove any theory to be 100% incontrovertible, but it can show a theory to be very LIKELY to be true.
And as with any other successful human endeavor, the science here is a competition among competing theories. So far, dark matter theory is the winner, like VHS. (Betamax had better image quality, but VHS was “better” and won because it was an open format. Don’t get too distracted by the imperfect analogy!) Some day, someone will come along with something that explains more evidence and is more concise, like Blueray.
Re: Handwavium (Score:4)
And then the whole concept is rendered irrelevant, like streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, dark matter is the leading theory because it explains all the data and it’s also the SIMPLEST explanation.
Which is something to explain to the people who think that dark matter explanation is too strange. We've pretty much past the point where if the solution to the issues we are seeing is not dark matter, the solution is going to be a whole lot weirder. Even with something like MOND, any possible solution to these things by modifying the laws of gravity would make them so complex and strange that nobody has yet come up with even hypothetical laws that might work for our observations.
Re: (Score:2)
What about "Because that's how GOD made it." That's the simplest yet and has similar predictive value.
Except that you first have to define god.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who does believe in God, I disagree about how they are similar.
Much of what we attribute to God must be taken on faith alone and was revealed, not discovered. It is not scientific at all in the sense that it can be tested.
Dark matter is a hypothesis that has observations where it makes as much, if not more sense than any of the other scenarios. I think everyone knows that Dark Matter isn't a full fledged theory yet, but there's nothing else with predictive value either, so that doesn't disquali
Re: (Score:2)
How is dark matter simpler than the idea that we simply aren't able to observe the entire universe, and thus can't even begin to speculate as to how much mass we should be seeing?
Re: (Score:2)
as I recall, dark matter is required less to explain the universe overall (dark energy gets that role, to explain expansion beyond what we'd predict without it) and more to explain why galaxies can rotate as fast as they do without breaking up, which takes more gravitational force than we can see sources for. So while I totally agree that we haven't really thoroughly surveyed the universe, we have been fairly thorough about some galaxies.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Well yeah. If it didn't move, it would be hand standstillium.
Co-gravitation (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
None of the references point to co-gravition, or Heaviside's force, which seems to produce much of the desired results called for.
Yes, all those references on over unity are really convincing. Love the youtube anti-grav videos as well. I'd tell you more but the gubmit will probably be breaking down my door to steal my plans for the Death Star. :P
Sorry, I don't believe in conspiracies or magic.
Re: (Score:2)
conspiracy
knspirs
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informal racket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but conspiracies are not necessarily illegal. Most aren't. Even the ones that are legal tend to be quite secretive, because the motivation for conspiracy is generally to benefit the members by use of hidden information. But not all conspiracies are even secretive, as some benefit merely be conjoined actions.
Con-spiracy: To breathe together. As in people gathered around a table.
Re: (Score:2)
You can argue the definition if you choose, I just posted the definition off of Google.
A conspiracy is when multiple people plot to do something. Yes, it doesn't have to be unlawful, as the definition says unlawful OR harmful, but I can't imagine a conspiracy that was legal, so I am not sure what you mean by that.
Why so negative? (Score:5, Insightful)
New Hubble Release Puts Another Nail In the Coffin of Dark Matter's Competitors
Well that's a gloomy spin on it. What about "New Hubble data advances scientific understanding of the universe. Go science!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Because the defining characteristic of science is that you test your crazy ideas and figure out which ones might be true.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the defining characteristic of science is that you test your crazy ideas and figure out which ones might be true.
By rejecting the ones that can't be true.
And that's exactly what's happened. One of dark matter's competitors has been tested and is now in the "can't be true" box.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. You might even say that another nail has been pounded into the lid of it's "can't be true" box.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's silly. If we nail the lid shut we won't be able to put anything else in there.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of little coffins. One for each crazy idea that didn't survive contact with science.
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of little coffins.
Oh, no, that's just sad. And a bit creepy.
Re: (Score:2)
But very Darwinian.
Properties of spacetime (Score:2)
What about if spacetime itself has some properies? Eg. tension? At relatively short distances the curvature of spacetime diminishes with r^2. However, as we go further and further from the center of the curvature, spacetime reaches flatness slower and slower. This can explain the galaxy rotation problem and other phenomena which requires dark matter.
This is similar to what MOND tries to achive, but unfotunately MOND does not say anything about spacetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article. They tested a relativistic version of MOND that DOES say things about spacetime. It failed. Modifications of gravity also fail to explain things like the bullet cluster.
Dark matter, heavy neutrinos and anti-matter (Score:2)
I've seen some speculation that dark matter could be a previously unseen heavy neutrino. I also understand based on current theories there should be a lot more anti-matter than is seen now in the universe. So my armchair physics idea is there was some reaction as part of the matter/anti-matter annihilation in the early universe that converted a lot of the anti-matter into the dark matter forms of heavy neutrinos. Has this idea been pretty much ruled out already?
Electricity (Score:2)
Can anyone post on the current understanding of electrical forces on galactic scales?
A while back I read a bunch of papers on preprint archives suggesting that the effects that we see as dark matter could be caused by the electric force. I don't have my bookmarks handy, but I recall some credentialed and not-obviously-crazy physicists saying that the idea had enough merit to warrant investigation.
Has that gone anywhere?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Consider modern hashing. If I know the correct input, I get the correct output. If I am off by one bit, but do not know which bit, and the input is 128bits, I have a 1/128 chance of getting the correct output.
No. You don't.
In any given modern hashing algorithm, any single bit error in any part of the process before the very last round should result in an change of at least half the bits in the output.
Change one input bit on a 128bit output, you'll get 64 output bits changing. If you don't, the hashing method isn't even worth beginning to discuss using it for something other than silly discussions.
Your simple mistake here is exactly science at this level is truly a joke. One simple bit error completely change
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I just read all of your bullshit post.
Lets get a couple things straight. My family has 3 PhDs in it. They're all fucking morons. All it takes to get a PhD is a sponsor, a few years of wasted life and money. The INSTANT you start telling people you're a PhD to give yourself credibility, you lose ALL credibility with anyone who has a clue. If you had a clue, you wouldn't need to ensure us that you have one.
Second, You're post is a rambling bunch of bullshit you made up. It is actually less plausib
Re: (Score:3)
I see that you have no background in science. Your rambling here is just as absurd as the OP's.
Re: (Score:2)
It is actually less plausible than magical fairies holding the galaxies together, thats how ridiculous your post is.
I prefer my theory, it is unicorn farts causing the distortion!
Re: (Score:2)
*Slow Clap*
Even by Slashdot standards, that was really insane.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"life circumstances rendered a conventional career infeasible"
You mean the fact that you are a loon? That never stopped anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the sorry state of physics, there is nothing wrong with hearing from alternatives, "armchair" or otherwise.
However, you mix relativity...with string theory -- and you can't do that.
But the biggest wtf is that the missing stuff is all *delay*? So, are we do for a gigantic shipment of stuff at some future date? This nonsense suggests you don't know how to vet your own ideas.
So, Mr. Ph.D., you fail in the details, not in whether you are an armchair or "pro" commenter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"String theory implies new physics in - and only in - the quantum regime." [stackexchange.com]
Relativity does not work at the quantum/Planck scale.
Since you are clearly quite clueless about all this, and I have better things to do, I officially exit this "discussion".
Re:Or it could be, you know, measurement errors (Score:4, Informative)
> Frankly, "dark matter" is like "magnetic monopoles". It works in mathematical models, but hasn't shown up in experiments and is not a *necessary* to explain how things work. Simpler models are powerful and elegant enough to cover the existing structure.
I am breaking my usual rule of not responding to anonymous cowards, but the quoted statement is wrong at several levels and I am feeling masochistic this morning.
The idea of dark matter does not come from mathematical models, it comes from observations. The standard model of particle physics does not predict dark matter. Dark matter was detected in experiments (or observations if one wants to be pedantic). There is no theoretical basis for dark matter, but there is a large body of evidence, from many different types of observations, supporting the idea that dark matter is a real part of the Universe. At present there are no theoretical alternatives to dark matter than can reproduce what we observe in the sky. Unless the past 80 years of observations are wrong then dark matter is necessary to explain what we see. There are no simpler models. Many have been tried, including small- and large-scale changes to gravity, and none have been able to reproduce what we actually observe.
Dark matter is not simply a measurement error. There are too many independent observations that all point to the existence of dark matter. Not only that, they all point to the same amount of dark matter and require that similar properties for dark matter. Measurement errors do not always work in the same direction across vastly different types of measurements. Bib Bang nucleosynthesis and the COBE/WMAP/Planck observations are completely different from galactic rotation curve and cluster velocity dispersion measurements, and yet they all predict consistent amounts of missing mass. Stray planets and low density clouds of cold gas are not enough to close the gap. Even if they did work for galactic rotation curves they would not be able to explain the results of the cosmic background radiation observations.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're not a nutter. You're an idiot. You and every other fucking moron posting in this thread who is ignorant of the body of evidence for dark matter can go fuck off and die. Dark matter has been mapped, dipshit. We know where it is.
You and everyone else are just retarded buttheads who are willfully ignorant of the evidence.
YOU COWS!
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, you consented by opening the URL. Block that like the rest of us do. I'm reasonably certain that their metrics are completely screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm no astrophysicist but I do watch a lot (too many, according to my girlfriend) documentaries on this very subject. If you have a competing model and the mathematics to suggest it might be true then, by all means, share! (I am a mathematician but, frankly, that doesn't make me qualified to opine on matters of physics but I am very interested - especially in alternative theories. Remember, they thought Einstein was wrong until they managed to take pictures of a solar eclipse.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Dark matter" is certainly nothing magical, though I do consider it weird.
The main problem with it is that it's defined only in terms of indirect effects. This is typical of subatomic resonances, i.e. extremely transient subatomic particles. It's not what one expects of something stable. Even the neutrino has been detected. (And I have my doubts about the graviton...either it's unstable, or we don't understand gravity, because we *should* have already detected it.)
So. I think the term "dark matter" is