Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

Dark matter vs. dark energy in a world where neither have been discovered

Spread the love
Lost in Math

But many believe they must exist. Particle physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, author of Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray, asks us not to confuse dark matter with dark energy:

Dark Matter and Dark Energy have distinctly different properties and cannot just be the same. At best they can both be different aspects of a common underlying theory. There are many theories for how this could happen, but to date we have no compelling evidence that this idea is correct.Sabine Hossenfelder, “Never again confuse Dark Matter with Dark Energy” at BackRe(Action)

Hossenfelder’s clarifications will at least help us understand what we are all confused about.

See also: Discover: Even the best dark matter theories are crumbling

Researcher: The search for dark matter has become a “quagmire of confirmation bias” So many research areas in science today are hitting hard barriers that it is reasonable to think that we are missing something.

Physicists devise test to find out if dark matter really exists

Largest particle detector draws a blank on dark matter

What if dark matter just doesn’t stick to the rules?

A proposed dark matter solution makes gravity an illusion

Proposed dark matter solution: “Gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but a reaction to the makeup of a given environment.”

Researchers: Either dark energy or string theory is wrong. Or both are. But dark energy is so glitzy! Isn’t it a line of cosmetics already?

Researchers: The symmetrons needed to explain dark energy were not found

Rob Sheldon: Has dark energy finally been found? In pop science mags?

Are recent dark energy findings a blow for multiverse theory?

and

Science at sunset: Dark energy might make a multiverse hospitable to life… if it exists

Follow UD News at Twitter!

5 Replies to “Dark matter vs. dark energy in a world where neither have been discovered

  1. 1
    FourFaces says:

    Dark matter and dark energy have one thing in common. Both are pseudoscientific crackpottery from on high, aka lies. Some elitist faction has gone through a lot of trouble to hide the true nature of reality from us stupid humans. 🙂

    PS. Unless you know the true causal nature of motion, you understand almost nothing about physics.

  2. 2
    tjguy says:

    How long do we keep looking for something that might not even exist? Will cosmologists ever admit defeat and revisit the Big Bang Theory? What if dark matter does not exist? What will be the next story dreamed up to save the Big Bang from falsification?

  3. 3
    ScuzzaMan says:

    Proposed dark matter solution: “Gravity is not a fundamental governance of our universe, but a reaction to the makeup of a given environment.

    If we can admit that gravity is not a fundamental governance, or at least not the sole fundamental governance, in defense of dark matter speculations having only the thinnest of evidentiary support, why can we not admit this in defense of theories that include other forces as fundamental governors, e.g. electric universe theories?

    It’s a strange double standard, is it not?

  4. 4
    PeterA says:

    “Hossenfelder’s clarifications will at least help us understand what we are all confused about.”

    Will they help her fellow scientists too?

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    As you and I sit here, there are around 65 billion solar neutrinos pouring through every square centimeter of our bodies every second. We cannot see them or hear them or touch them or taste them or smell them.

    The fact is, put very simply, we would not even know they exist unless scientists had noticed some discrepancies between experimental results and what was predicted by theory. In 1930, Wolfgang Pauli postulated the existence of a particle with properties that would account for the observed discrepancies. But it wasn’t until 1965, after a lot of effort, that the first neutrino was detected.

    Maybe dark matter and dark energy do not exist but they are rational proposals and the fact they have not yet been detected yet does not necessarily mean they don’t exist. And if we give up too easily, we might stop short of a great scientific discovery. Would that be more rational?

Leave a Reply