You're viewing a single thread.
When do we admit that maybe Dark Matter just doesn't exist?
We don't because we have experimental evidence for it's existence.
I would argue that we have evidence for which the theory of dark matter and dark energy is a fairly suitable theory.
That's all any theory in physics is. You don't see an electron, you observe what it does.
Sure, yes, but my point was that we don't have evidence specifically for the existence of dark matter.
We have evidence that is not explained by visible, detectable mass.
Dark matter is the current favored theory which happens to explain discrepancies between what is observed and what is expected.
But I don't think we can logically conclude dark matter is the only explanation, which is what your original statement seems to imply. It is the best explanation that we have so far.
If we place objects on the dining table the night before and observed them lying on the floor the next morning, we can't claim "we have evidence for sleepwalking residents." There may be another theory that explains it, such as: the cat is knocking the things off the table. We need additional evidence to determine which theory fits or else come up with a new theory.
Hopefully I am making sense here lol
But it is visible, it's visible in terms of gravitational effects. We can "see" the effects of dark matter. That is evidence specifically for dark matter, i.e. matter that is very hard or impossible to detect via the electromagnetic spectrum but is observable through gravity.
Dark matter is the explanation, the question is more what form does it take.
It just takes a bit of acknowledgement that actually the EM spectrum is not the only way to view the universe. In fact it's just one of four (maybe five) fundamental forces. We're just used to that being the default for seeing because it's how we physically see. It's an anthropocentric bias to say something doesn't exist because we can't view it via EM radiation despite the fact gravity is clearly showing it to us.
You could use your logic to argue against the existence of black holes. We don't see them by definition but they are most certainly there.
I meant "visible" as in EM spectrum.
We can "see" the effects of dark matter.
I am well aware and I have already said as much.
I'm not sure why you're missing my point.
Wikipedia:
"In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that appears to not interact with light or the electromagnetic field. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be seen,..."
Unless you're aware of some case where dark matter has interacted with light or EM fields?
So we see these gravitational effects that either means general relativity falls apart under conditions we have yet to identify or there is more mass than we can detect with the EM spectrum.
I'm not arguing against the existence of dark matter. You're misunderstanding my intent.
I'm not even arguing. I'm just pointing out that your original statement isn't quite correct.
But Dark Matter is a great scientific theory. It probably will hold up. I can't wait to see what we learn next!
Anyway I probably shouldn't have even responded because it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things and my thumbs are tired from arguing against bigoted assholes in other places (I'm on a phone) so... peace
I would argue that Wikipedia is wrong or misguided. There is no serious debate about whether or not dark matter exists. I also think you've completely missed the point of my argument regarding the EM field just being only one way to detect the existence of things.
No we don't
We have gravitational evidence. We can only ever infer the existence of anything. An example of this is we didn't actually see the Higgs Boson we just deduced it's existence from the cascade of interactions that happens when particles collide. Similarly we can deduce from the gravitational evidence that dark matter exists.
Well then we better figure out where tf is the 80% of the matter in the universe is hiding.
Easy. When scientists come up with a verifiable theory that explains observed gravitational effects in the universe that can't be explained by general relativity, given visible matter.
I mean at this point, dark matter just seems like reaching at this point. Might as well be a neurologist searching for the human soul.
That'd be a valid comparison, if there were any evidence of a soul existing. The effects of matter, on the other hand, are clearly visible - or invisible, in the case of dark matter.
Yes but at the same time we used to have all the evidence in the world indicate that planet Vulcan was just behind the sun, and then it turned out that no it wasn't. If Dark Matter can't be found no matter what experiment we do. Then maybe we are mistaken about its existence
Just because something seemingly doesn't interact with EM fields doesn't mean it isn't there, it's just something that only really interacts with the rest of the universe on a gravitational level.
While we haven't detected dark matter in a lab, it isn't on the same level as a metaphysical soul.
I'm not aware of any physical phenomena for which a soul is the best theory currently available.
Whereas dark matter is the best theory so far to explain observed gravitational effects^1 that cannot be explained by general relativity and detectable matter alone. Yes, it may be due to something else (other theories exist and maybe someone will come up with another better one).
1 includes: "formation and evolution of galaxies,[1] gravitational lensing,[2] observable universe's current structure, mass position in galactic collisions,[3] motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies." - wikipedia
When you admit that night time doesn't exist simply because you're not there to observe it while you sleep. We know somethings there. We know there's matter that isn't adding up. We just don't know what it is.