- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

The case against dark matter
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:40 pm
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:40 pm
I don’t know nearly enough about this to speak intelligently but I have a hunch that when this is resolved we don’t actually find something we’re calling dark matter but rather it’s going to be a shift in our understanding/models/equations.
LINK
Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is just over 100 years old, and so far it has predicted the interaction between celestial objects and the space-time field very well. There are a few troublesome spots, however, in which the theory of general relativity doesn’t agree with quantum mechanics. These gaps have confounded researchers for decades, and have sprouted a handful of hypotheses attempting to explain the dissonance.
Dark matter and dark energy are the prevailing stand-in answers for this problem, but they are, as of yet, merely stand-ins. And there are some physicists that do not buy into these explanations. Erik Verlinde, a professor of science mathematics, and informatics at the University of Amsterdam, is one of them. He’s developing a theory that takes another look at the mechanics of gravity, and it seems to have struck a nerve in the world of physics.
Emergent gravity,” as Verlinde calls it, is the idea that gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but instead a reaction to the makeup of a given environment. Rather than thinking of gravity as a fundamental force, something that “just is,” is it possible that gravity is actually the result of the positions of quantum bodies, similar to the way temperature is derived from the motions of individual particles?
LINK
Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity is just over 100 years old, and so far it has predicted the interaction between celestial objects and the space-time field very well. There are a few troublesome spots, however, in which the theory of general relativity doesn’t agree with quantum mechanics. These gaps have confounded researchers for decades, and have sprouted a handful of hypotheses attempting to explain the dissonance.
Dark matter and dark energy are the prevailing stand-in answers for this problem, but they are, as of yet, merely stand-ins. And there are some physicists that do not buy into these explanations. Erik Verlinde, a professor of science mathematics, and informatics at the University of Amsterdam, is one of them. He’s developing a theory that takes another look at the mechanics of gravity, and it seems to have struck a nerve in the world of physics.
Emergent gravity,” as Verlinde calls it, is the idea that gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but instead a reaction to the makeup of a given environment. Rather than thinking of gravity as a fundamental force, something that “just is,” is it possible that gravity is actually the result of the positions of quantum bodies, similar to the way temperature is derived from the motions of individual particles?
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:42 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
is it possible that gravity is actually the result of the positions of quantum bodies
Makes more sense than "it's just there"
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:44 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
against dark matter
Racist.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:46 pm to DavidTheGnome
LINK
Dark matter is a theorized form of matter that is believed to account for approximately 80% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. The majority of dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature, possibly being composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles.[note 1] Dark matter has not been directly observed, but its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts believe dark matter to be ubiquitous in the universe and to have had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. The name dark matter refers to the fact that it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible (or 'dark') to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, making it extremely difficult to detect using usual astronomical equipment.[1]
The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing,[3] from the cosmic microwave background, from astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, from the formation and evolution of galaxies, from mass location during galactic collisions,[4] and from the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter and energy, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 2] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.
Dark matter is a theorized form of matter that is believed to account for approximately 80% of the matter in the universe, and about a quarter of its total energy density. The majority of dark matter is thought to be non-baryonic in nature, possibly being composed of some as-yet undiscovered subatomic particles.[note 1] Dark matter has not been directly observed, but its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts believe dark matter to be ubiquitous in the universe and to have had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. The name dark matter refers to the fact that it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible (or 'dark') to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, making it extremely difficult to detect using usual astronomical equipment.[1]
The primary evidence for dark matter is that calculations show that many galaxies would fly apart instead of rotating, or would not have formed or move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter.[2] Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing,[3] from the cosmic microwave background, from astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, from the formation and evolution of galaxies, from mass location during galactic collisions,[4] and from the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters. In the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter and energy, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% of an unknown form of energy known as dark energy.[5][6][7][8] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 2] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:50 pm to DavidTheGnome
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/7/18 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:52 pm to rmnldr
Gravity doesn’t "pull" though, it makes objects "fall" towards each other.
Or I guess really I should say gravity is the effect of objects falling towards each other, it’s caused by mass warping spacetime.
Or I guess really I should say gravity is the effect of objects falling towards each other, it’s caused by mass warping spacetime.
This post was edited on 5/7/18 at 6:54 pm
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:53 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Emergent gravity,” as Verlinde calls it, is the idea that gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but instead a reaction to the makeup of a given environment. Rather than thinking of gravity as a fundamental force, something that “just is,” is it possible that gravity is actually the result of the positions of quantum bodies, similar to the way temperature is derived from the motions of individual particles?
I honestly thought this was common knowledge. Did we jump dimensions again?
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:58 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Gravity doesn’t "pull" though, it makes objects "fall" towards each other.
This is so wrong. You should be banned.
quote:
Or I guess really I should say gravity is the effect of objects falling towards each other, it’s caused by mass warping spacetime.
Nonsense. There is space and there is time but there is no spacetime.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 6:58 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Gravity doesn’t "pull" though, it makes objects "fall" towards each other.
Honestly, what’s the difference?
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:01 pm to starsandstripes
quote:
This is so wrong. You should be banned.
?

Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:07 pm to DavidTheGnome
Your explanation that it makes things fall together makes sense if you imagine the universe as if it’s a sheet of canvas and the sun is a bowling ball and the other planets are marbles but it really isn’t settled enough to describe it that simply. As far as I understand, it’s easy to demonstrate what we can observe through teaching it that way, but gravity acts much differently in reality.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:21 pm to rmnldr
quote:
but gravity acts much differently in reality.
How so? On a quantum scale you’re right, it doesn’t behave how we think it should. Unifying relativity and quantum physics is the holy grail of physics, and when doing so I think we’ll discover the true nature of dark matter & energy.
But each time it’s been put to the test Einstein's theory on gravity has been shown to be true though, on a macro scale at least. Just last month the Hubble caught this, an Einstein ring caused by the mass of a galactic cluster bending light rays from distant galaxies. LINK
This post was edited on 5/7/18 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:31 pm to DavidTheGnome
Wouldn’t that suggest that gravity is pulling the space, time, and light to distort it? None of those components (even as abstract as space and time are) contain matter, so what exactly is happening there?
Unless there’s an underlying fabric that exists throughout the empty gaps in the universe to exist as the canvas for the marbles to pull on each other, I don’t see how our current understanding of gravitational effects can be correct.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not remotely smart enough to actually be discussing this. I just don’t see how current models and theories can explain the phenomena we’ve observed from gravity.
Unless there’s an underlying fabric that exists throughout the empty gaps in the universe to exist as the canvas for the marbles to pull on each other, I don’t see how our current understanding of gravitational effects can be correct.
And don’t get me wrong, I’m not remotely smart enough to actually be discussing this. I just don’t see how current models and theories can explain the phenomena we’ve observed from gravity.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:39 pm to DavidTheGnome
M Theory and Superstring theory contain explanations for dark matter and dark energy.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:42 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
You should be banned.
We need a hero right meow.
:sadface:
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:42 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
don’t know nearly enough about this to speak intelligently
Would you mind putting this before every one of your posts. Thanks.
Posted on 5/7/18 at 7:50 pm to Breesus
quote:
Would you mind putting this before every one of your posts. Thanks.
No
Popular
Back to top
