Would astronomers be comfortable without ever confirming dark matter/energy in the lab?

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

It seems to me that the results from LHC haven't been particularly kind to various DM theories, SUSY theory, and WIMP theory in particular. I remember discussing this topic a decade or so ago when astronomers were very much looking forward to the opportunity to verify DM at LHC, and anticipating/predicting that LHC would provide such laboratory evidence. Today however, that hope seems to be fading rapidly. Although there are some additional experiments proposed for LHC, more recently, much attention has been put into other types of DM experiments like LUX, Panda-X, Xenon1T, etc. Those results however have also been disappointing to say the least.

The cost and the time to build a replacement collider to LHC is significant, and the "justification" for a new collider is somewhat of a harder "sell" as well. Whereas LHC took about two decades to complete, and it was almost certain to find evidence of the Higgs Boson at the very least, and potentially new particles as well, such justifications are not as certain with any new replacement collider experiment. Even if stable forms of exotic matter do actually exist, they may not be able to created in the next collider. If exotic stable forms of matter do not exist, it's entirely possible that a new collider might not find anything new at all, even if it does help nail down the rest mass of neutrinos.

In a "best case" scenario, it's likely that a new collider will take at least another couple of decades to complete. At my age, I may not even live long enough to see any results from such an endeavor.

I wonder then if astronomers, particularly older astronomers are "comfortable" with the possibility that they might never live to see DM or DE models justified by actual laboratory experimentation in their lifetimes. Does that concern them at all?

Tinker Grey · Sep 23, 2019

Do you know any other tunes?

Ghostjunkie · Sep 23, 2019

Well, the Higgs was a theory for 50 years before it was confirmed. The math supported it, but without evidence, physicists had to "take it on faith." I smile at that. DM and DE may be theories only supported by math, and science may have to take them "on faith," but as the Higgs revealed, faith in science is rewarded, much like faith in God. Daniel prayed for 21 days. Science looked for the boson for 50 years. Potatoes/Tomatoes

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

Ghostjunkie said:
Well, the Higgs was a theory for 50 years before it was confirmed. The math supported it, but without evidence, physicists had to "take it on faith." I smile at that. DM and DE may be theories only supported by math, and science may have to take them "on faith," but as the Higgs revealed, faith in science is rewarded, much like faith in God. Daniel prayed for 21 days. Science looked for the boson for 50 years. Potatoes/Tomatoes

True, Peter Higgs did in fact live to see his ideas confirmed in the lab. On the other hand, the "dark matter" concept has been around since the early 1930's when Fritz Zwicky first proposed it. It's been almost 90 years, and billions spent looking for it, yet there is nothing much to show for it in the lab.

While it's certainly true that faith in mathematical models is *sometimes* rewarded in science, such faith is also often misplaced and misguided as Ptolemy so clearly demonstrates. Ptolomy was a mathematical model that was quite popular for many centuries, but ultimately it was simply "misplaced faith" in a bad physical model.

The dark energy concept has been around for almost two decades, yet nobody can name so much as a single source of dark energy in all that time. It's kinda of tough to find evidence of something if you have no idea where it comes from, let alone how it might remain at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

Ghostjunkie · Sep 23, 2019

Geocentrism was not supported by actual math--which in this parable might as well be scientific scripture. We must beware the false prophets in both our spiritual and scientific faiths.

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

Ghostjunkie said:
Geocentrism was not supported by actual math--which in this parable might as well be scientific scripture. We must beware the false prophets in both our spiritual and scientific faiths.

Actually astronomers proposed the existence of 'epicycles', paths which objects presumably followed over time, and they came up with rather elaborate mathematical descriptions/models of them to explain the odd movements of various planets.

There are similar more contemporary examples between Birkeland, Alfven and Chapman:

Error - Cookies Turned Off

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

Tinker Grey said:
Do you know any other tunes?

Yes, of course.

Halbhh · Sep 23, 2019

Would astronomers be comfortable without ever confirming dark matter/energy in the lab?

I'd think that was very individual, whether an astronomer or astrophysicist/cosmologist/theorist is bothered much by not yet understanding dark matter.

For myself, I'm very comfortable not knowing.

I'm content to read yet another in a long string of speculative theories, while entertaining a few notions of my own, and also to read about more observations of new unexpected things. So, I'm content to not know. And I'd be delighted to find out today or tomorrow. I'm good either way.

It's delightful not knowing, and would be delightful to know.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 23, 2019

The basic concept of black holes was outlined in the 18th century by Michell and Laplace. Gravitational waves were first proposed by Poincare in 1905. Some patience is necessary.

As has been repeatedly explained, dark matter hypotheses are being tested roughly in order of perceived likelihood, feasibility, & affordability. Although DM particle hypotheses are the leading candidates, there are a number of them, and, for obvious reasons, they are very difficult to test.

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The basic concept of black holes was outlined in the 18th century by Michell and Laplace. Gravitational waves were first proposed by Poincare in 1905. Some patience is necessary.

As has been repeatedly explained, dark matter hypotheses are being tested roughly in order of perceived likelihood, feasibility, & affordability. Although DM particle hypotheses are the leading candidates, there are a number of them, and, for obvious reasons, they are very difficult to test.

I think most theists would argue that while it may not be possible to observe God directly, it's certainly possible to see the "effects" of God on human beings.

Likewise one's "faith" in exotic forms of matter seem to be based not upon direct observation, or laboratory confirmation, but upon a "belief" that the "effect" on something (on some set of data) is enough to hold belief in the idea, even in the absence of direct observation.

This seems to be an atheists version of a "holding faith" in the unseen (in the lab) to the point of almost a life long commitment to the idea even in the absence of direct empirical (in the lab) evidence of the concept.

Tanj · Sep 23, 2019

Michael said:
I wonder then if astronomers, particularly older astronomers are "comfortable" with the possibility that they might never live to see DM or DE models justified by actual laboratory experimentation in their lifetimes. Does that concern them at all?

I sure hope not, it would mean they are not actually scientists. Only pseudo scientists and armchair wanna be's think that science require lab based experiments.

Michael · Sep 23, 2019

Tanj said:
I sure hope not, it would mean they are not actually scientists. Only pseudo scientists and armchair wanna be's think that science require lab based experiments.

History is full of examples of astronomers holding belief/faith in ideas which were later shown to be in error.

So why precisely do you lack belief in God is the "effect" on something is enough to hold belief in "dark matter" and laboratory confirmation is optional?

Tanj · Sep 23, 2019

Michael said:
History is full of examples of astronomers holding belief/faith in ideas which were later shown to be in error.

Not just astronomers. History is full of people from all walks of life doing all kinds of things being in error.

So why precisely do you lack belief in God is the "effect" on something is enough to hold belief in "dark matter" and laboratory confirmation is optional?

I didn't say anything about God or belief, I merely pointed out that the idea that all science must be done/ratified "in the lab" is fatuous. Personally I currently work in pediatric population health, I look at questions like "does maternal smoking affect childhood asthma" or "is there a relationship between the proximity of a park/exercise area and child hood obesity?" None of these involve "in the lab". Indeed, many real world complex system can only be studied in the field, and can never be studied in the lab. and only someone with absolutely no understanding of science would suggest otherwise.

Michael · Sep 24, 2019

Tanj said:
Not just astronomers. History is full of people from all walks of life doing all kinds of things being in error.

True.

I didn't say anything about God or belief, I merely pointed out that the idea that all science must be done/ratified "in the lab" is fatuous. Personally I currently work in pediatric population health, I look at questions like "does maternal smoking affect childhood asthma" or "is there a relationship between the proximity of a park/exercise area and child hood obesity?" None of these involve "in the lab". Indeed, many real world complex system can only be studied in the field, and can never be studied in the lab. and only someone with absolutely no understanding of science would suggest otherwise.

That's probably true for some things in science, but it's not necessarily true in the case of exotic matter claims or exotic energy claims. In fact non-standard particle physics models have been tested *extensively* in the lab, and they've failed in each instance.

Tanj · Sep 24, 2019

Michael said:
That's probably true for some things in science, but it's not necessarily true in the case of exotic matter claims or exotic energy claims.

And it's not necessarily not true either. Your unevidenced assertion that it is true in this case is....underwhelming.

In fact non-standard particle physics models have been tested *extensively* in the lab, and they've failed in each instance.

Utterly irrelevant. I've studied alot of transcriptomics in the lab as well. Says nothing about how pop health should be studied.

Zoii · Sep 24, 2019

Michael said:
It seems to me that the results from LHC haven't been particularly kind to various DM theories, SUSY theory, and WIMP theory in particular. I remember discussing this topic a decade or so ago when astronomers were very much looking forward to the opportunity to verify DM at LHC, and anticipating/predicting that LHC would provide such laboratory evidence. Today however, that hope seems to be fading rapidly. Although there are some additional experiments proposed for LHC, more recently, much attention has been put into other types of DM experiments like LUX, Panda-X, Xenon1T, etc. Those results however have also been disappointing to say the least.

The cost and the time to build a replacement collider to LHC is significant, and the "justification" for a new collider is somewhat of a harder "sell" as well. Whereas LHC took about two decades to complete, and it was almost certain to find evidence of the Higgs Boson at the very least, and potentially new particles as well, such justifications are not as certain with any new replacement collider experiment. Even if stable forms of exotic matter do actually exist, they may not be able to created in the next collider. If exotic stable forms of matter do not exist, it's entirely possible that a new collider might not find anything new at all, even if it does help nail down the rest mass of neutrinos.

In a "best case" scenario, it's likely that a new collider will take at least another couple of decades to complete. At my age, I may not even live long enough to see any results from such an endeavor.

I wonder then if astronomers, particularly older astronomers are "comfortable" with the possibility that they might never live to see DM or DE models justified by actual laboratory experimentation in their lifetimes. Does that concern them at all?

This was really interesting. Thank you

Michael · Sep 24, 2019

Tanj said:
And it's not necessarily not true either. Your unevidenced assertion that it is true in this case is....underwhelming.

IMO you're comparing apples to oranges. DM and various extensions to the standard model of particle physics have been studied to the tune of tens of billions of dollars now in experiments all over the planet, and *absolutely nothing* has been found to suggest that such things have merit.

A more valid comparison would be akin to someone claiming that invisible dust mites were the cause of cancer. Numerous studies were performed the world over looking for invisible dust mites and a link to cancer, and nothing was ever found to suggest the existence of invisible dust mites, nor any correlation between invisible dust mites and cancer. The exotic matter claim itself is "underwhelming", particularly it's string of laboratory failures over the past couple of decades. It has no practical predictive value whatsoever in the lab.

Utterly irrelevant. I've studied alot of transcriptomics in the lab as well. Says nothing about how pop health should be studied.

Again however you're ignoring the clear physical differences between the studies that you're suggesting, and the *actual* laboratory "tests" of DM. It's not like these studies have never been performed. It's not as though we haven't spent *tens of billions of dollars* looking for evidence of such things in real lab experiments.

For example, there's actually *more laboratory evidence* to support the ORCH-OR concept of consciousness and life after death than there is laboratory evidence to support dark matter:

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Out of curiosity, why exactly do you 'lack belief' in God and identify yourself as an atheist, if not based on a highly subjective perceived "lack of evidence"?

Tanj · Sep 24, 2019

Michael said:
IMO you're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm really not, but I'm not taking this topic any further. Explaining science to non scientists that don't want to understand is simply frustrating.

Out of curiosity, why exactly do you 'lack belief' in God and identify yourself as an atheist, if not based on a highly subjective perceived "lack of evidence"?

It's not highly subjective. Evidence is objective...that's an essential aspect of it.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 24, 2019

Michael said:
I think most theists would argue that while it may not be possible to observe God directly, it's certainly possible to see the "effects" of God on human beings.

Scientists would say that we have learned that positing an ill-defined entity then looking for evidence that can be attributed to it is an open invitation to confirmation bias and is an extremely unreliable guide to reality. A proposed explanation that is untestable, has no explanatory power, no predictive power, fails to widen the scope of our understanding or unify our knowledge, invokes an unobservable and inexplicable ontology, and raises unanswerable questions, is no explanation at all.

A scientific approach would be to see if the phenomena (i.e. certain human behaviours) can be explained by a testable hypothesis involving natural phenomena (i.e. without invoking novel and inexplicable ontologies) and whether there is evidence to support such a hypothesis. The answer to both those questions is affirmative. The God hypothesis is therefore redundant.

Likewise one's "faith" in exotic forms of matter seem to be based not upon direct observation, or laboratory confirmation, but upon a "belief" that the "effect" on something (on some set of data) is enough to hold belief in the idea, even in the absence of direct observation.

The dark matter particle hypotheses are one set of a number of proposed explanations for certain unexplained phenomena. Based on extrapolations of existing knowledge, they are testable, parsimonious, have explanatory and predictive power, and cohere well with established knowledge. If confirmed, such a hypothesis will widen the scope of our understanding and unify areas of existing knowledge. If a particle explanation cannot be found, or an alternative explanation is demonstrated to better fit the observations, we will gain knowledge from that. What we learn by narrowing the search space or falsifying the hypothesis is important.

No faith or belief is necessary.

This seems to be an atheists version of a "holding faith" in the unseen (in the lab) to the point of almost a life long commitment to the idea even in the absence of direct empirical (in the lab) evidence of the concept.

An excellent demonstration of willful ignorance and/or lack of understanding of the philosophy of science. I say 'willful' because this has been explained to you so many times.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Sep 24, 2019

Michael said:
For example, there's actually *more laboratory evidence* to support the ORCH-OR concept of consciousness and life after death than there is laboratory evidence to support dark matter:

Discovery of quantum vibrations in 'microtubules' inside brain neurons supports controversial theory of consciousness

Lol! Not really - here's my post on the lab work you seem to think has value, and its lack of any coherent connection to an explanation of consciousness.

In fact, I already gave you links that explain why Orch-OR, as published, is quantum woo pseudoscience.

Would astronomers be comfortable without ever confirming dark matter/energy in the lab?

Contributor

Wanderer

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Contributor

Contributor

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Redefined comfortable middle class

Contributor

Redefined comfortable middle class

Contributor

Redefined comfortable middle class

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Redefined comfortable middle class

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads