The Gods Of Mathematical Physics

[Winstonm]

Wikipedia:

 

A small proportion of dark matter may be baryonic dark matter, astronomical bodies (such as massive compact halo objects) that are composed of ordinary matter, but which emit little or no electromagnetic radiation. However, the vast majority of the dark matter in the universe is believed to be nonbaryonic, and thus not formed out of atoms. It is also believed not to interact with ordinary matter via electromagnetic forces. The nonbaryonic dark matter includes neutrinos, and possibly hypothetical entities such as axions, or supersymmetric particles. Unlike baryonic dark matter, nonbaryonic dark matter does not contribute to the formation of the elements in the early universe ("big bang nucleosynthesis") and so its presence is revealed only via its gravitational attraction. In addition, if the particles of which it is composed are supersymmetric, they can undergo annihilation interactions with themselves resulting in observable by-products such as photons and neutrinos ("indirect detection)

 

It appears we have come full circle - explaining an unexplained phenomenon by creating a supernatural actor to fill the void in knowledge.

 

Is it dark matter or should we simply call it Zeus?

[helene_t]

Huh? There is nothing "supernatural" about gravity. WTP?

[shyams]

It appears we have come full circle - explaining an unexplained phenomenon by creating a supernatural actor to fill the void in knowledge.

 

Is it dark matter or should we simply call it Zeus?

I get a sense the latest craze in "dark matter/dark energy" begins to resemble the "ether" phase of physics

[Winstonm]

Huh? There is nothing "supernatural" about gravity. WTP?

Nothing is wrong with gravity - but when there is excess gravity and you postulate invisible OD matter as the cause, you may just as well call dark matter the hand of god.

 

Perhaps the more prudent action would be to reassess the basic propositions than indulge in creation of invisible OD matter?

[OleBerg]

I'm down with gravity!

[vuroth]

Other than the fact that we've known about neutrinos for a danged long time, why does a discussion on a bridge forum seek to second guess the experts in the field?

 

There's an enormous gulf between "there's matter out there somewhere we can't see" and "hand of god". Science has always had gaps in its knowledge. Rather than just throw up their hands and say "dunno, must be god", science has a long history of theorizing, modelling, and trying to come to grips with the gaps. It's how we learn.

 

V

[helene_t]

I'm down with gravity!

I am cool with cosmic background radiation!

 

Anyway, vuroth said it.

[kfay]

Rather than just throw up their hands and say "dunno, must be god"

LOL

[USViking]

Include me with those who see nothing godlike about Dark Matter.

It is just another of those many big mysteries that the big guns of

science are paid to spend their working lives trying to help figure out.

Plopping "God" into the issue is an inaccurate and unconstructive

rhetorical flourish.

 

In this case the problem with looking for a solution by examining basic

propostions is that the propositions needing to be examined are the

gravitational theories of Newton and Einstein. In fact, they would have

to be discarded, because the whole Dark Matter issue arose from the

observation that the rotation speed of galactic objects do not conform

to the predictions of gravitational theory: objects furthest distant from

the center rotate about the center much faster than they should.

 

A "halo" of dark matter surrounding all galaxies is a logical, parsimonious explanation,

and smearing science which you for some reason do not cotton to

by calling it "God" is luddite.

 

Of course no theory is holy writ, and all are fair game. Newton himself

was corrected by Einstein's more accurate theory, although Newton

remains good enough to allow us to put a spacecraft through a bullseye

1km in radius in the vicinity of the planet Neptune. Nevertheless, I predict

that Newton and Einstein will remain intact and that those who enjoy

imagining the collapse of great repuations will be disappointed again,

as usual.

[Winstonm]

...because the whole Dark Matter issue arose from the

observation that the rotation speed of galactic objects do not conform

to the predictions of gravitational theory: objects furthest distant from

the center rotate about the center much faster than they should.

 

So, does that mean that the original theory is so strong that we must assume magical invisible dust that has to be there in order to keep the original theory on target? I don't know. I would think that when a theory has falsification problems, the idea would be to question the underlying theory rather than to continually create fixes that justify the existing theory.

 

Didn't we follow this same path of necessary modifications to make the theory work for about 2000 years with the geocentric earth model? I only wonder if we have so much invested in current ideas that we are following the same path?

[OleBerg]

...the idea would be to question the underlying theory rather than to continually create fixes that justify the existing theory.

I'm not a science-man, but my guess is, that this is being done all the time.

[mikegill]

Your analogy to the geocentric theory is faulty. The geocentric model hung on for so long because everyone thought "of course we're at the center of the solar system." They didn't have any proof, they just believed it because it fit with religious beliefs. In this case, our theory of how gravity works only fits every other observation we've ever made in our local part of the universe. Now that being said...

 

there is a small community of serious scientists who believe that dark matter is not the answer to this riddle. There is a theory called MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics) which (I think) suggests that on large enough scales such as the laws of gravity change. These scientists are very much looked down upon because their opinion is different from nearly everyone else (which I think is not the way science should work).

 

Cosmology is not my area of astronomy, so I'm trying to not say anything that is clearly considered to be wrong, but I haven't ever heard anything that I thought was 100% clearly definitive proof that dark matter is correct. I don't think any serious scientists would believe in MOND if there were. However, I think dark matter it is a more elegant theory - if the laws of gravity were to suddenly change at some distance scale, why would that be? Why not some other scale? It seems arbitrary and doesn't really make sense. On the other side, we DO know of at least one object in the universe that 1) doesn't emit radiation 2) has mass and 3) doesn't interact with baryons except through gravity - the black hole. A black hole in space without enough matter around to form an accretion disk cannot be detected at all except by its gravitational influence on other matter. It seems to me easier to believe that there exist other such particles/objects in the universe than it does to believe that for some unexplainable reason a law which is known to be correct and constant for all distance scales up to X suddenly changes. That being said, science isn't about what the majority of people believe - it's about who happens to be right, so who knows.

[USViking]

So, does that mean that the original theory is so strong...

 

Stop right there.

 

The original theory is tied for the lead in the history of science

for confirmation by observation, experiment, and utility.

 

Utility you say? Yes, besides that camera we flew to Neptune,

closer to home is all that GPS stuff for which the original theory

works pretty darn good, or to put it another way,

it is pretty f*cking strong.

 

 

...that we must assume magical invisible dust that has to be there in order to keep the original theory on target?

 

No.

 

We are permitted to make other assumptions.

 

For example, serious Dark Matter theorists assume that although

the subject of investigation is neither “magical” nor “dust” it IS invisible.

Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”?

 

 

 

I don't know.

You said it, I didn't.

 

 

 

I would think that when a theory has falsification problems, the idea would be to question the underlying theory rather than to continually create fixes that justify the existing theory.

The underlying theory has had questions and questioners from the start.

This is not its first challenge.

 

An analogous recent challenge was the 40-year long

“missing” neutrino problem:

 

See link:

 

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/articles/bahcall/

 

It turned out nothing was “missing” after all, and in 2001-2003

original theory triumphed again.

 

 

 

Didn't we follow this same path of necessary modifications to make the theory work for about 2000 years with the geocentric earth model?

No.

 

For 2000 years we had nowhere near the powers of observation

we now do. Our powers of observation are multiple trillions better

than they were in the day of the great astronomer Ptolemy. If Ptolemy

had had the powers of observation we do now, I think it is reasonable

to assume he would arrive at the same conclusions that we do now.

 

 

 

I only wonder if we have so much invested in current ideas that we are following the same path?

I think there is no danger, literally no danger of that.

[luke warm]

Plopping "God" into the issue is an inaccurate and unconstructive rhetorical flourish.

are you sure it's inaccurate? and, on the off chance that it isn't (inaccurate, that is), would it then become constructive?

...that we must assume magical invisible dust that has to be there in order to keep the original theory on target?

No.

 

For example, serious Dark Matter theorists assume that although the subject of investigation is neither “magical” nor “dust” it IS invisible. Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”?

not me... very hard to falsify an invisible entity

[Winstonm]

USViking,

 

It is obvious you have a great store of knowledge in this area. Obviously, I do not - so my questions are genuine and not meant as a criticism of science.

 

I wonder if the powers of observation you describe are the result of observation or mathematics or some combination? I honestly don't know. My question is whether or not mathematics can explain rather than describe.

 

To me, this should be important as the validity of the axiomatic assumptions of the mathematical logic determines the validity of any mathematical proof - it is certainly not the same type proof as observational.

 

Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”?

 

Who would? Atoms are not visible, yet we know they exist. The only problem I have is with the concept of an OD particle mediating an action on a physical object. How can that occur, meaning what is the rational explanation that something that is not only invisible but has no L,W,or H (as I understand dark dark matter - thus the allusion to the concept of god possessing no L, W, or H) be a causative agent for action on a physical object?

 

That is the nature of the question. Obviously, if dark matter possesses L, W, H then the problem is solved.

[barmar]

I wonder if the powers of observation you describe are the result of observation or mathematics or some combination? I honestly don't know. My question is whether or not mathematics can explain rather than describe.

Scientist have discovered over the centuries that the physical world tends to behave very mathematically. It's uncanny that so many simple formulas can describe observed phenomena.

 

However, they don't just blindly assume that any particular formula will work. Rather, they hypothesize a formula, make predictions based on it, and then perform experiments to see whether they fit the predictions.

 

One of the most famous examples was from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. It predicted that light from stars would be deflected by the gravity of the sun, about twice the amount that Newton's Laws predicted. A number of years later, astronomers measured this deflection during a solar eclipse, and it matched Einstein's theory perfectly.

 

Since then, many other predictions of Einstein's theories have been verified by observation. Conversely, there have not been any observations that contradict them, so it's hard to justify throwing them out.

 

But all theories are subject to modification and refinement. Newton's Laws were fine as long as you confined your observations to motion at a small fraction of the speed of light, or within a small gravitational field; Einstein refined them to handle more general cases. It's possible that a theory like MOND could further refine Einstein's theories.

 

Here's another example. After Uranus was discovered, astronomers tracked its position for several decades, and they noticed that the orbit didn't match the prediction of Newton's Laws. Rather than throw out the math, they asked "What if there's another planet out there, exerting a gravitational force on Uranus?" They did the calculations to figure out where that planet would have to be to cause the difference in the orbit that they observed. Then they looked there, and found Neptune. A similar process was how Pluto was discovered.

 

So if you have a choice between throwing out a theory that works, or looking for something new that fits in with the existing theory, experience tells us that the latter is the way to go.

[USViking]

I wonder if the powers of observation you describe are the result of observation or mathematics or some combination?

A combination. For example telescopes were not available

to Ptolemy, and four dimensional geometry was not either.

Those are just two weapons of the vast arsenal of modern science.

 

 

 

I honestly don't know. My question is whether or not mathematics can explain rather than describe.

I believe Galileo said that the Book of Nature is written in the

Language of Mathematics. Another scientist, I forget who, said

that mathematics possesses “unreasonable effectiveness” as

a tool in the study of Nature. Those statements seem to me to

imply both description and explanation, if in fact there is a clear

division between the two.

 

 

 

To me, this should be important as the validity of the axiomatic assumptions of the mathematical logic determines the validity of any mathematical proof - it is certainly not the same type proof as observational.

I think proof is in principle unavailable for any scientific theory.

 

We just have to hope we can arrive at satisfactory explanation

and description of Nature without the need to meet impossible

standards of proof.

 

 

 

Who would? Atoms are not visible, yet we know they exist. The only problem I have is with the concept of an OD particle mediating an action on a physical object. How can that occur, meaning what is the rational explanation that something that is not only invisible but has no L,W,or H (as I understand dark dark matter - thus the allusion to the concept of god possessing no L, W, or H) be a causative agent for action on a physical object?

 

That is the nature of the question. Obviously, if dark matter possesses L, W, H then the problem is solved.

You have skipped ahead of me with OD, what is that?

 

And L, W and H?- the three spacial dimensions? I have not heard

that spacial dimensionlessness is a requirement of Dark Matter.

[USViking]

Plopping "God" into the issue is an inaccurate and unconstructive rhetorical flourish. 

are you sure it's inaccurate?

Yes.

 

 

 

and, on the off chance that it isn't (inaccurate, that is), would it then become constructive?

No.

 

 

 

...we must assume magical [sic] invisible dust [sic]  that has to be there in order to keep the original theory on target? 

Maybe.

 

 

 

For example, serious Dark Matter theorists assume that although the subject of investigation is neither “magical” nor “dust” it IS invisible. Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”? 

not me... very hard to falsify an invisible entity

OK, I guess.

[barmar]

You might want to read the book Is God a Mathematician.

[luke warm]

Plopping "God" into the issue is an inaccurate and unconstructive rhetorical flourish. 

are you sure it's inaccurate?

Yes.

how can anyone argue with such airtight logic?

...we must assume magical [sic] invisible dust [sic]  that has to be there in order to keep the original theory on target? 

Maybe.

i don't believe i said what you are quoting me as saying

For example, serious Dark Matter theorists assume that although the subject of investigation is neither “magical” nor “dust” it IS invisible. Anyone gotta problem with “invisible”? 

not me... very hard to falsify an invisible entity

OK, I guess.

okay, so winston's hand-of-God (an invisible entity) thrust holds at least a little water

[OleBerg]

okay, so winston's hand-of-God (an invisible entity) thrust holds at least a little water

As much as this reasoning:

 

"Some men have beards."

 

leads to:

 

"So God as a bearded man holds some water."

[USViking]

how can anyone argue with such airtight logic?

You can't.

 

 

 

 

i don't believe i said what you are quoting me as saying

I believe I did. Look up "sic"

 

 

 

 

okay, so winston's hand-of-God (an invisible entity) thrust holds at least a little water

Not OK.

 

Whether or not atomic theory is falsifiable he did not offer

impossibility of falsification as ground for insinuating God.

In fact he did the opposite: he said Dark Matter theory was

having "falsification problems", and that those stupid panicking

scientists had concocted a theoretical "Zeus" to plug the gap.

[USViking]

i don't believe i said what you are quoting me as saying 

 

I believe I did...

Pardon me, I did in fact misattribute to luke warm a quote from Winstonm.

 

The quotation function here is different here from all other boards

I have ever posted to, and lends itself to a confusing series

of quotes within quotes within quotes.

[gwnn]

You called?

[matmat]

Physics doesn't work. It's all a bunch of lies. The world is a puppet controlled by strings.