Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6042950" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>I want to come back to this again briefly. From studying the CMB, we know that there must be some kind of non-normal dark matter in essentially the right amount to explain the speeds of galaxies in clusters, rotation of stars in galaxies, etc. Even some strong MOND advocates agree. Is it possible that MOND is necessary to explain the motions of, for example, stars in galaxies? Yes. I haven't heard anyone to argue that it's not possible (that is, another physicist make this case). However, it seems reasonable to most people that dark matter works well with what data we have, so there is no reason <strong>yet</strong> to add a new ingredient of MOND until we see something that dark matter predicts incorrectly.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm not sure about "a lot" of recent articles, at least not scientific research. The vast majority is really on dark matter. Think of it like a company. You might spend some of your capital on a risky but high-payoff kind of project (MOND), but you want to invest almost all of it on a less risky but also pretty high-payoff project (DM). I should also mention that there are strong motivations to believe that there is particle physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics (for reasons independent of wanting dark matter) which themselves often include possible dark matter particles.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's possible. There are people following up on the papers discussed in this blog post. But some of the history not mentioned in that post is that Verlinde's idea is very similar to work done a long time ago (10-20 years, I think) and has never produced much. Could it be right? Yes, but it just doesn't have a good track record yet. The logic in the papers also seems a bit circular in places, if I recall.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm listening to the clip. And people do respect that (listen to the woman talking to the other students at around 11:30). But I can tell you that he makes some inaccurate statements (in particular, saying that we believe in dark energy because of one experiment -- it was a number of things together that convinced people).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>OK, I think maybe I wasn't entirely clear in what I was saying. They did not have direct data on the wind speeds at Neptune. What you're saying is that they had a lot of indirect information to build a model of Neptune's climate -- true -- but that model turned out to be incorrect. (By the way, solar wind is not the same as a planetary wind.)</p><p></p><p>This is very different than the case of dark matter. First off, the idea of dark matter was prompted by data (stellar motion in galaxies). It wasn't a case of thinking about something we already saw (Neptune) and trying to model something we hadn't directly observed yet (the winds). Then, people started asking about predictions or consequences of the idea of dark matter. And these predictions have been verified, in at least one case (the CMB) very very well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You have more than one point here, and I'm going to address them out of order. Last one first: I think it's really quite unfair to the astrophysics/cosmology/particle physics community to say that it "discards" alternative theories because of "what they were taught as true science." First of all, there are definitely people working on alternatives, like MOND, and the division of labor is the result of an optimization process: each physicist deciding (1) what seems like a promising avenue based on current evidence and (2) where he or she can make a good contribution. Next, science has proven to be very good at self-correction. As you've cited, there are "contrarian" scientists, and people do listen when the give solid arguments. (Veltman's in that video were not well-articulated IMO, but maybe he has stronger reasons than what came out in the clip.)</p><p></p><p>Back to the first point. I hope I've made it clear that the most important, cleanest observation, the CMB, points strongly to the existence of matter outside the Standard Model. It's also pretty difficult for theories without dark matter to explain things like the Bullet Cluster.</p><p></p><p>And now, the grand finale <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />. Why haven't we discovered DM in a lab yet? After all, there are lots of experiments looking for it as it passes through earth. Well, first off, there are some experiments that claim to have detected it (though there is a lot of scepticism about those results for various reasons). But even leaving that aside, should we expect to have discovered DM in those experiments? Certainly, the models studied the most should be in range of detection, at least. But why are they the most studied? At least partly because people wanted to be ready in case they were detected! Remember, all cosmology tells us is that there's some kind of non-luminous nearly pressureless type of matter not in the Standard Model. The only way it absolutely has to interact with normal matter -- like our experiments -- is through gravity. If that's it, our experiments can't possibly detect dark matter passing through the earth. And I might add that there are some good possibilities for dark matter in well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model that would not be detectable. So this is what we'd call a model-dependent question. Yes, it would be disappointing if we can't find DM in a lab. Would it be a waste of money? Well, millions of dollars is chump change compared to some experiments, the profits of some corporations, etc. I tend to think of it as fulfilling our curiosity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6042950, member: 40227"] I want to come back to this again briefly. From studying the CMB, we know that there must be some kind of non-normal dark matter in essentially the right amount to explain the speeds of galaxies in clusters, rotation of stars in galaxies, etc. Even some strong MOND advocates agree. Is it possible that MOND is necessary to explain the motions of, for example, stars in galaxies? Yes. I haven't heard anyone to argue that it's not possible (that is, another physicist make this case). However, it seems reasonable to most people that dark matter works well with what data we have, so there is no reason [b]yet[/b] to add a new ingredient of MOND until we see something that dark matter predicts incorrectly. I'm not sure about "a lot" of recent articles, at least not scientific research. The vast majority is really on dark matter. Think of it like a company. You might spend some of your capital on a risky but high-payoff kind of project (MOND), but you want to invest almost all of it on a less risky but also pretty high-payoff project (DM). I should also mention that there are strong motivations to believe that there is particle physics beyond the Standard Model of particle physics (for reasons independent of wanting dark matter) which themselves often include possible dark matter particles. It's possible. There are people following up on the papers discussed in this blog post. But some of the history not mentioned in that post is that Verlinde's idea is very similar to work done a long time ago (10-20 years, I think) and has never produced much. Could it be right? Yes, but it just doesn't have a good track record yet. The logic in the papers also seems a bit circular in places, if I recall. I'm listening to the clip. And people do respect that (listen to the woman talking to the other students at around 11:30). But I can tell you that he makes some inaccurate statements (in particular, saying that we believe in dark energy because of one experiment -- it was a number of things together that convinced people). OK, I think maybe I wasn't entirely clear in what I was saying. They did not have direct data on the wind speeds at Neptune. What you're saying is that they had a lot of indirect information to build a model of Neptune's climate -- true -- but that model turned out to be incorrect. (By the way, solar wind is not the same as a planetary wind.) This is very different than the case of dark matter. First off, the idea of dark matter was prompted by data (stellar motion in galaxies). It wasn't a case of thinking about something we already saw (Neptune) and trying to model something we hadn't directly observed yet (the winds). Then, people started asking about predictions or consequences of the idea of dark matter. And these predictions have been verified, in at least one case (the CMB) very very well. You have more than one point here, and I'm going to address them out of order. Last one first: I think it's really quite unfair to the astrophysics/cosmology/particle physics community to say that it "discards" alternative theories because of "what they were taught as true science." First of all, there are definitely people working on alternatives, like MOND, and the division of labor is the result of an optimization process: each physicist deciding (1) what seems like a promising avenue based on current evidence and (2) where he or she can make a good contribution. Next, science has proven to be very good at self-correction. As you've cited, there are "contrarian" scientists, and people do listen when the give solid arguments. (Veltman's in that video were not well-articulated IMO, but maybe he has stronger reasons than what came out in the clip.) Back to the first point. I hope I've made it clear that the most important, cleanest observation, the CMB, points strongly to the existence of matter outside the Standard Model. It's also pretty difficult for theories without dark matter to explain things like the Bullet Cluster. And now, the grand finale ;). Why haven't we discovered DM in a lab yet? After all, there are lots of experiments looking for it as it passes through earth. Well, first off, there are some experiments that claim to have detected it (though there is a lot of scepticism about those results for various reasons). But even leaving that aside, should we expect to have discovered DM in those experiments? Certainly, the models studied the most should be in range of detection, at least. But why are they the most studied? At least partly because people wanted to be ready in case they were detected! Remember, all cosmology tells us is that there's some kind of non-luminous nearly pressureless type of matter not in the Standard Model. The only way it absolutely has to interact with normal matter -- like our experiments -- is through gravity. If that's it, our experiments can't possibly detect dark matter passing through the earth. And I might add that there are some good possibilities for dark matter in well-motivated extensions of the Standard Model that would not be detectable. So this is what we'd call a model-dependent question. Yes, it would be disappointing if we can't find DM in a lab. Would it be a waste of money? Well, millions of dollars is chump change compared to some experiments, the profits of some corporations, etc. I tend to think of it as fulfilling our curiosity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
Top