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
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: 6043348" data-attributes="member: 40227"><p>Quoting away, sometimes out of order....</p><p></p><p>First, about detection of dark matter:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely! Although, to be honest, people use WIMP to mean anything with a weak-strength interaction, not just the weak nuclear force any more. And these interactions with the Standard Model are reasonably well-motivated. But that part has always been a bit of a guess; maybe there's a whole dark sector with weak-strength interactions and even weaker interaction with the Standard Model. Or DM might interact relatively strongly with the Standard Model but not with the detectors we've built for some reason (yes, I can give some good ones if you want to know). My point is that, while experiments are currently excluding a very interesting part of parameter space, interactions with the Standard Model are not at all required for cosmological dark matter to work. In any case, this is a very very active area because there are a number of hints that we may actually be starting to see some signs of dark matter.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, it is, and the claims of possible detections, some of them very strong, face even stronger scepticism. People know how hard it is and that there are a lot of pitfalls. We're talking about extremely small signals, and miniscule amounts of radiation, etc, cause problems. No one knows this better than the people running the experiments. The results are subject to A LOT of scrutiny.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Problem, what problem? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> Kidding, kidding...</p><p></p><p>Let me explain this for our other readers before I respond, since it's clear you've read a lot about dark matter. I should also mention that the wikipedia page on it isn't very good in that it relies on just a few authors (including at least one who is a noted MOND proponent) and doesn't really get at the consensus. The issue is that simulations of the formation of galaxies using plain vanilla dark matter (and other standard assumptions) suggest that dark matter becomes extremely concentrated at the center of galaxies. This is called a cusp. However, observations of some galaxies suggest that there is no cusp, rather that the density tops out at some maximum value. This is the origin of the "cuspy halo problem."</p><p></p><p>Here's the issue with the problem. First, it's tricky to do observations of dark matter halos (since, you know, dark matter is invisible), and, while people agree that there is no evidence yet of cusps, most observers don't think the observations are good enough to say there is evidence against cusps yet. At least not in all types of galaxies -- small galaxies called dwarfs are typically accepted not to have cusps. But the observational situation for big galaxies, like ours, is far from clear, and there could, in fact, be strong cusps still. On the other side of the coin is that the idea of cuspiness comes from simulations which take millions of CPU hours but do not yet include all the physics. In particular, it's only recently that simulations have started to go beyond just the gravity of dark matter and to add normal matter, which does things like make stars, cool down, etc. This can have different effects on dark matter, which might end up making the dark matter more or less cuspy, depending on exactly what happens. It hasn't been worked out well enough yet.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have to go do some work now, so just briefly: compared to the number of graduate programs in the world, there are very very few graduate course lectures available on-line, and only a percentage of those would relate to dark matter or anything similar. Also, the most important part of graduate education doesn't take place in the classroom but in meetings with supervisors and on your own reading, doing homework, or doing research (yes, grad students are important researchers). What that means is that, while even cutting-edge subjects might be presented in a "here it is" kind of way in some lectures, the evidence is also presented, analyzed, and critiqued. That's part of what you learn to do, hopefully even before grad school.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6043348, member: 40227"] Quoting away, sometimes out of order.... First, about detection of dark matter: Absolutely! Although, to be honest, people use WIMP to mean anything with a weak-strength interaction, not just the weak nuclear force any more. And these interactions with the Standard Model are reasonably well-motivated. But that part has always been a bit of a guess; maybe there's a whole dark sector with weak-strength interactions and even weaker interaction with the Standard Model. Or DM might interact relatively strongly with the Standard Model but not with the detectors we've built for some reason (yes, I can give some good ones if you want to know). My point is that, while experiments are currently excluding a very interesting part of parameter space, interactions with the Standard Model are not at all required for cosmological dark matter to work. In any case, this is a very very active area because there are a number of hints that we may actually be starting to see some signs of dark matter. Yes, it is, and the claims of possible detections, some of them very strong, face even stronger scepticism. People know how hard it is and that there are a lot of pitfalls. We're talking about extremely small signals, and miniscule amounts of radiation, etc, cause problems. No one knows this better than the people running the experiments. The results are subject to A LOT of scrutiny. Problem, what problem? :p Kidding, kidding... Let me explain this for our other readers before I respond, since it's clear you've read a lot about dark matter. I should also mention that the wikipedia page on it isn't very good in that it relies on just a few authors (including at least one who is a noted MOND proponent) and doesn't really get at the consensus. The issue is that simulations of the formation of galaxies using plain vanilla dark matter (and other standard assumptions) suggest that dark matter becomes extremely concentrated at the center of galaxies. This is called a cusp. However, observations of some galaxies suggest that there is no cusp, rather that the density tops out at some maximum value. This is the origin of the "cuspy halo problem." Here's the issue with the problem. First, it's tricky to do observations of dark matter halos (since, you know, dark matter is invisible), and, while people agree that there is no evidence yet of cusps, most observers don't think the observations are good enough to say there is evidence against cusps yet. At least not in all types of galaxies -- small galaxies called dwarfs are typically accepted not to have cusps. But the observational situation for big galaxies, like ours, is far from clear, and there could, in fact, be strong cusps still. On the other side of the coin is that the idea of cuspiness comes from simulations which take millions of CPU hours but do not yet include all the physics. In particular, it's only recently that simulations have started to go beyond just the gravity of dark matter and to add normal matter, which does things like make stars, cool down, etc. This can have different effects on dark matter, which might end up making the dark matter more or less cuspy, depending on exactly what happens. It hasn't been worked out well enough yet. I have to go do some work now, so just briefly: compared to the number of graduate programs in the world, there are very very few graduate course lectures available on-line, and only a percentage of those would relate to dark matter or anything similar. Also, the most important part of graduate education doesn't take place in the classroom but in meetings with supervisors and on your own reading, doing homework, or doing research (yes, grad students are important researchers). What that means is that, while even cutting-edge subjects might be presented in a "here it is" kind of way in some lectures, the evidence is also presented, analyzed, and critiqued. That's part of what you learn to do, hopefully even before grad school. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Is Time Travel (going backwards) Possible?
Top