• MutilationWave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      There’s a big debate now about whether dark matter really exists or there’s a better explanation for how most of the mass of the universe seems to be unable to be perceived. Related to gravitational waves lately I believe.

      Take this for what it is I’m not a scientist I just occasionally read science articles.

      • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I think you’re getting confused with dark energy. There is very little debate about dark matter–it’s an observation that many many many people have made.

        Dark energy is the name for whatever is causing the explanation expansion rate of the universe to increase. There’s quite a bit of debate about whether the expansion rate even IS increasing. And the amount of increase is different according to how you try to observe it. So yeah, there’s a lot of debate about whether dark energy is actually a thing, but there is very little debate on whether there’s more matter than we’re able to observe, something that we call dark matter but which we don’t really understand. Similar names, but totally different concepts!

          • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            It’s an interesting idea, but it assumes that physical forces are getting WEAKER over time, and that’s a pretty big assumption. It’s not very parsimonious.

            • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              I’m not a subscriber to this particular theory, but I do think model error is a more plausible explanation than magical, undetectable mass.

              • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                The mass is definitely detectable–it’s just not visible. And it’s detectable in several different ways that all match, that’s the key here. This is definitely an observation.

                • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  Dark matter is an infinite number of free variables we can place anywhere in our universe to make our current gravitational models work. Of course they match.

                  Can you call it an observation if the lens you are using may be faulty?

                  Why is dark matter given so much precedence over model error? (Particularly because we know our current model can’t do things like quantum gravity)

                  • BrerChicken @lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    Can you call it an observation if the lens you are using may be faulty?

                    If you use many lenses you can assure yourself that they are not all faulty in the same way. This is why we can safely say that dark matter is observed fact, because we observe it in so many different ways.

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      That was just a bit of snarky commentary, no need to read into it.

      Dark matter fits what we observe the best out of all of our models, but we’ve never observed it despite the many massive detection chambers we’ve built or probes we’ve sent out.