Introducing "Dark Matter"

[Julian of York]

My word!
What had started as a simple post to discuss the composition of "Dark Matter" has blossomed into 18 pages of responses.
Now let me ask a serious question here,please:
My mind, being human, cannot cope with cosmic distances or multiple dimensions or time with a big "T".
I also cannot conceive of a God that created all that.
HOWEVER, it seems that the two approachs are not dissimilar. That is, that what appears large to humans, is ,in fact, interrelated and effected by every other piece of matter in the Universe. "Dark Matter" seems to take up enough "mass" to answer as the conduit of interaction.
Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.
Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.
Also, we have "time". But by your own admissions we are faced with "billions" of years of evolution from (that's right, folks: a single atom).However, time is now believed to be a non-absolute. Therefore, anyone in control of everything could be everywhere and at anytime.
The question? Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?
I don't see it.

JoY

 

[[serious]]

Who said anything about EM interactions? By Einstein, what is energy? E=mc^2, as in mass and energy are proportional. A human is a superposition of atoms, which is a superposition of protons and electrons, which is a superposition of strong-force and EM force carriers, which is a superposition of energy. Mass is a condensation of wave-packets. When waves bundle, and form particle-packets, you get mass. Photons have "no mass," yes, but a bundle of several nonillions of photons create mass by bundling into wave packets. The photon itself is the particle form of a light wave.

Mass and energy are proportional, which means they are fundamentally the same, and differ by some constant. Therefore, a human, rock and photon are fundamentally one in the same. Two are superpositions, or sums, of the fundamental one.

Photons never have mass. Ever. They have inertia as a result of their energy, but not mass.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My word!
What had started as a simple post to discuss the composition of "Dark Matter" has blossomed into 18 pages of responses.

It's a fascinating topic.

Now let me ask a serious question here,please:

My mind, being human, cannot cope with cosmic distances or multiple dimensions or time with a big "T".

I also cannot conceive of a God that created all that.

HOWEVER, it seems that the two approachs are not dissimilar. That is, that what appears large to humans, is ,in fact, interrelated and effected by every other piece of matter in the Universe. "Dark Matter" seems to take up enough "mass" to answer as the conduit of interaction.

Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.

I disagree. Christians, for instance, believe that God created the universe, listens to and answers prayers, manifested on Earth as Jesus Christ, etc. This is not the same as a being who controls a single atom.

Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.

I disagree - simply creating something doesn't necessarily give you the right to do anything you want with it. Parents can't do anything they want to their children, just because they made them.

Also, we have "time". But by your own admissions we are faced with "billions" of years of evolution from (that's right, folks: a single atom).

That's not quite what evolution says. Over billions of years, successive generations have evolved into the various forms of life we see today. The common ancestor was probably a primitive cell, perhaps even just a lipid micelle with self-replicating proteins inside. The existence of this geological 'deep time' is well-established - we have more evidence than you can shake a stick at.

However, time is now believed to be a non-absolute. Therefore, anyone in control of everything could be everywhere and at anytime.

If such a being existed, it could be, yes. But it remains to be seen if such a being does, indeed, exist.

The question? Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?

The difficulty is that there is no evidence that God exists. It's not a conceptual problem, it's simply a dearth of evidence.

 

[DaneaFL]

My word!
What had started as a simple post to discuss the composition of "Dark Matter" has blossomed into 18 pages of responses.
Now let me ask a serious question here,please:
My mind, being human, cannot cope with cosmic distances or multiple dimensions or time with a big "T".
I also cannot conceive of a God that created all that.
HOWEVER, it seems that the two approachs are not dissimilar. That is, that what appears large to humans, is ,in fact, interrelated and effected by every other piece of matter in the Universe. "Dark Matter" seems to take up enough "mass" to answer as the conduit of interaction.
Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.
Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.
Also, we have "time". But by your own admissions we are faced with "billions" of years of evolution from (that's right, folks: a single atom).However, time is now believed to be a non-absolute. Therefore, anyone in control of everything could be everywhere and at anytime.
The question? Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?
I don't see it.

JoY

It's just that with all the amazing and seemingly crazy things we are finding out about how space and time works, why do people continue to shoehorn a God in between it all?

It seems like God's goalpost of neccesity keeps getting pushed back with each new scientific breakthrough...

...before germ theory, God did it.
...before evolution theory, God did it.
...before abiogenesis theory, God did it.
...and now before quantum theory, God did it.

We showed how diseases can be caused without God, we showed how life could change without God, we showed how life could BEGIN without God, and now we are at the edge of showing how the entire universe could begin without God!

With the work people like Lawrence Krauss are doing that shows that yes, in fact you CAN get something from nothing and it happens all the time, why do we keep trying to squeeze God in the gaps?

I think we live at a very exciting time where God has been pushed back all the way to the edge of the universe and he just needs one more nudge to completely make the whole superstitious concept irrelevant.

I think that nudge will come in the next few decades when they complete some form of quantum field theory or string theory.

I've been watching a lot of youtube videos on the subject and I don't think a lot of people know how many crazy things they have actually found out... like how empty space actually has energy, how particles can literally come out of nothing, and how things can actually exist without a cause.

Can theists just not see this pattern of God being pushed back over and over again? Wouldn't that give most people a hint that there might be something flawed with their presuppositions?

So to answer the question:

Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?
I don't see it.

because there is increasingly less and less reason to believe it in the first place!

 

[Michael]

It's a fascinating topic.

From a skeptics perspective it's even more fascinating when discussing the topic with "atheists" because it has so many parallels with religious belief.

If such a being existed, it could be, yes. But it remains to be seen if such a being does, indeed, exist.

Likewise, a "gap filler" type of matter "could" exist, yes. But it remains to be seen if such an exotic type of matter does indeed exist.

The difficulty is that there is no evidence that God exists. It's not a conceptual problem, it's simply a dearth of evidence.

There's a complete "dearth of evidence" that exotic types of matter exist too. The difference is that humans REPORT having a relationship with something they call "God". Astrophysicists simply "made up" their gap filler and none of them even claim to have a relationship with it, nor can they tell us where it comes from!

I'm really blown away that you can't see the parallels here between the "gaps" you're filling in mainstream theory and the lack of "cause/effect" justification for such a claim, particularly since you're still complaining about a lack of cause/effect justification over the concept of "God".

 

[Michael]

It's just that with all the amazing and seemingly crazy things we are finding out about how space and time works, why do people continue to shoehorn a God in between it all?

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

Your argument presumes an outcome, as does mine of course. The primary difference between us is that I can provide more empirical justification for God of the Cosmos than you (or anyone else) can provide for the mainstream "explanation" of the universe around us.

It seems like God's goalpost of neccesity keeps getting pushed back with each new scientific breakthrough...

...before germ theory, God did it.
...before evolution theory, God did it.
...before abiogenesis theory, God did it.
...and now before quantum theory, God did it.

Those would actually be "successful predictions" of any pantheistic view of the universe. We simply don't understand the PHYSICS of God yet, well most of us don't.

We showed how diseases can be caused without God, we showed how life could change without God,

Ok.

we showed how life could BEGIN without God,

When?

and now we are at the edge of showing how the entire universe could begin without God!

That would be an example of your 'faith', not something you can demonstrate empirically. Where did inflation come from? Can you make some inflation in a lab for us?

With the work people like Lawrence Krauss are doing that shows that yes, in fact you CAN get something from nothing and it happens all the time, why do we keep trying to squeeze God in the gaps?

Lawrence is like an atheist "deacon" of your religion I suppose. Since when CAN anyone GET "something for nothing" in controlled experimentation here on Earth, or is that one of those "somewhere back in time" mythologies related to your "religion"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

You do realize that the laws of physics insist that energy CANNOT be created or destroyed, right? It can only change FORMS.

I think we live at a very exciting time where God has been pushed back all the way to the edge of the universe and he just needs one more nudge to completely make the whole superstitious concept irrelevant.

Oh ye of little faith.

I think that nudge will come in the next few decades when they complete some form of quantum field theory or string theory.

Why on Earth would you believe in something like 8+ more dimensions in time and space, and some RULE OUT God in all those dimensions? Wow. Talk about FAITH!

I've been watching a lot of youtube videos on the subject and I don't think a lot of people know how many crazy things they have actually found out... like how empty space actually has energy,

You don't seem to realize that the energy has necessarily existed eternally.

how particles can literally come out of nothing,

Er, not actually. Particles like neutrinos "exist' in the best "vacuums" we will every create, as do whole atoms actually. Those PARTICLES of preexisting ENERGY can will "interact" for a short while and APPEAR as though something is being 'created' or 'destroyed' but energy CANNOT be created or destroyed. That's another OVERSIMPLIFIED idea related to a PARTIAL, yet incomplete understanding of QM.

and how things can actually exist without a cause.

AFAIK NOTHING exists without a cause. I may not UNDERSTAND the cause, but nothing I've seen in life suggest that anything happens without a cause. In fact quite the opposite is true. From physics we can track 'causes'. In biology, we can track the CAUSE of some types of cancers.

Can theists just not see this pattern of God being pushed back over and over again? Wouldn't that give most people a hint that there might be something flawed with their presuppositions?

If we applied that same logic to mainstream cosmology theory, wouldn't the fact that 95 percent of the theory is based upon "unseen" (in the lab) forms of matter and energy be our first hint that maybe that theory is nearly useless in terms of explaining anything?

Just recently all that presumed "dark matter" went up in one giant puff of observation of the system around us. Nobody in the mainstream cares about that observation, or that LACK of dark matter. In fact no FALSIFICATION mechanism for exotic types of matter are possible.

So to answer the question:

because there is increasingly less and less reason to believe it in the first place!

Ditto for dark matter, dark energy, inflation, "something from nothing" (Krauss's religion), etc. None of these things exist on Earth. They are "fillers" for thing that cannot and will not ever be empirically verified or demonstrated in your lifetime. Why put your faith in them at all?

At least the empirical theory of God that I put forth COULD be empirically verified during my lifetime *IF* God chose to do so. There's literally no hope that Guth's dead inflation deity in the sky will ever be recreated in the lab, not now, not ever.

 

[Michael]

My word!
What had started as a simple post to discuss the composition of "Dark Matter" has blossomed into 18 pages of responses.
Now let me ask a serious question here,please:
My mind, being human, cannot cope with cosmic distances or multiple dimensions or time with a big "T".
I also cannot conceive of a God that created all that.
HOWEVER, it seems that the two approachs are not dissimilar. That is, that what appears large to humans, is ,in fact, interrelated and effected by every other piece of matter in the Universe. "Dark Matter" seems to take up enough "mass" to answer as the conduit of interaction.
Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.
Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.
Also, we have "time". But by your own admissions we are faced with "billions" of years of evolution from (that's right, folks: a single atom).However, time is now believed to be a non-absolute. Therefore, anyone in control of everything could be everywhere and at anytime.
The question? Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?
I don't see it.

JoY

This conversation is really interesting from my perspective. I actually have a MUCH harder time believing in metaphysical things like "dark matter", "dark energy", "inflation" and all the things that CAN NEVER influence my life. God is someone that has an effect on me every single day.

 

[dbcsf]

My word!
What had started as a simple post to discuss the composition of "Dark Matter" has blossomed into 18 pages of responses.
Now let me ask a serious question here,please:
My mind, being human, cannot cope with cosmic distances or multiple dimensions or time with a big "T".
I also cannot conceive of a God that created all that.
HOWEVER, it seems that the two approachs are not dissimilar. That is, that what appears large to humans, is ,in fact, interrelated and effected by every other piece of matter in the Universe. "Dark Matter" seems to take up enough "mass" to answer as the conduit of interaction.
Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.
Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.
Also, we have "time". But by your own admissions we are faced with "billions" of years of evolution from (that's right, folks: a single atom).However, time is now believed to be a non-absolute. Therefore, anyone in control of everything could be everywhere and at anytime.
The question? Where is the Difficulty in believing in God?
I don't see it.

JoY

I am glad it works for you, but I do not find your argument persuasive. You are making many assumptions without any evidence.

Now, if a Being had control of all matter by being in true control of one atom, that Being would be , by every description I am aware of, God.

That is a big “if”.

Secondly , that Being, by creating it all , has rights and priveleges to control all the Cosmos.

That is another really big “if”.

My general thought is that science is not made to evaluate the existence of God. Science is a good approach for the study of the material universe.

To attempt to prove the existence of God in a rational manner I would suggest philosophy. Philosophy has a long history. Many imaginative and intelligent approaches have been tried. I do not think any have proven God’s existence yet, but a lot has been learned in the attempt.

I sense you are saying that the universe is a vast, incomprehensible, and interconnected place, and therefore implies a creator. That is a popular approach and it works for many people. It is basically the watchmaker approach. David Hume is the classic philosopher who argued against the watchmaker argument very effectively.

Peace

 

[DaneaFL]

This conversation is really interesting from my perspective. I actually have a MUCH harder time believing in metaphysical things like "dark matter", "dark energy", "inflation" and all the things that CAN NEVER influence my life. God is someone that has an effect on me every single day.

why do you keep calling those things metaphysical?

just because something doesn't reflect protons, the requirement for something to be "seen", doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

where can I go observe and test God? ...cuz they can do that to what the call "dark matter" all the time.

 

[Michael]

why do you keep calling those things metaphysical?

Because:

A) unlike normal forms of matter and energy, you can't tell me where it comes from.

B) there has never been an empirical cause/effect relationship between "missing mass" and exotic mass or "acceleration" and 'dark energy'. The connection is ALLEGED yet devoid of empirical support.

just because something doesn't reflect protons, the requirement for something to be "seen", doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

You don't hear me complaining about neutrinos or subatomic particles we've seen in the lab. We know where they come from and how to control them in real "experiments" with real control mechanisms.

If however you claim that SUSY particles exist, you must provide empirical support.

where can I go observe and test God? .

I suggested a lab experiment on Earth actually.

..cuz they can do that to what the call "dark matter" all the time.

No, they can't. They can't even tell you where to get a gram of the stuff, and in fact they've pretty much rule it out entirely in our region of space.

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

The problem is that even when it's been falsified, the theory keeps living on and on and on like a dead zombie of a theory.

 

[DaneaFL]

No, they can't. They can't even tell you where to get a gram of the stuff, and in fact they've pretty much rule it out entirely in our region of space.

The problem is that even when it's been falsified, the theory keeps living on and on and on like a dead zombie of a theory.

Did you actually read the article you posted? cuz I did.

Also, to ask to get a 'gram' of something that "... is detectable only via the gravitational pull it generates." is ridiculous.

How do you get "it's been falsified" from "We have not proven that dark matter does not exist, and even if we do, at this point we cannot explain many other phenomena that today are explained only by dark matter."?

It's usually a good idea to read more than the title of articles you post.

 

[elahmine]

Most likely a WIMP particle. In case my best guess is some type of particle we have not detected yet.

 

[Michael]

Did you actually read the article you posted? cuz I did.

Sure, but you didn't seem to much care about the implications of the findings as it relates to your faith in "dark" stuff.

Did you happen to notice that the findings of the study actually FALSIFIED mainstream theories related to any sort of exotic forms of "dark matter"?

Also, to ask to get a 'gram' of something that "... is detectable only via the gravitational pull it generates." is ridiculous.

From my skeptical perspective, the only "ridiculous" part is expecting me to believe in something for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO empirical support! None! First of all, SUSY theory has been one gigantic DUD in the lab at LHC.

LHC Excludes SUSY Theories, Theorists Clinch Hands

When astrophysicists keep yapping on about "Wimps" and such, they seem to be utterly oblivious to the fact that SUSY theory is all but been eliminated in terms of the "simplest" versions anyway. There's literally been ZERO useful empirical support for any "exotic' forms of matter to date in all the labs on Earth combined! Zip. Nadda. None. ZERO. Assuming any SUSY particle is eventually discovered, there's no guarantee it will have the necessary properties (like longevity) to plug the holes in mainstream cosmology theory.

Worse however for mainstream theory, I showed you three SPECIFIC failures of mainstream theoretical galaxy mass estimation models on page one of this thread. I then showed you ANOTHER blatant failure of mainstream theory in terms of it's "predictions", yet you personally didn't bat an eye in terms of your 'faith' in stuff you can't see, taste, touch or smell. What's up with that? If your faith in the UNSEEN (in the lab) is so strong as it relates to astrophysics, why did you reject the concept of an intelligent creator/God again? Who needs EMPIRICAL evidence from a lab? Certainly not you!

Your "faith" seems to be 100% in anything with the label 'science' attached to it, but zero percent as it relates to the topic of God. That seems rather 'hard to justify logically' if you're UNIFORMLY rather than SUBJECTIVELY applying this 'faith' thing you have going.

How do you get "it's been falsified" from "We have not proven that dark matter does not exist, and even if we do, at this point we cannot explain many other phenomena that today are explained only by dark matter."?

I explain it by noting that the mainstream's MODELS are completely USELESS in terms of "guestimating" the NORMAL matter in a given galaxy. I showed you four specific failures of those models in the last 4 years. It's been zero for four in terms of ACCURATE predictions about NORMAL matter vs. "exotic matter".

It's usually a good idea to read more than the title of articles you post.

Believe me when I tell you that I've read more materials on astrophysics than most human beings will read in an entire lifetime, and I'll probably continue at this pace for at least another 20 years. I enjoy the topic very much. I just don't believe everything I read.

FYI, there are at least TWO alternative models to choose from to explain galaxy rotation patterns. I prefer Peratt's computer models of electromagnetic effects in plasmas. His models CLOSELY resemble the actual layout of matter in galaxies and no "dark" stuff is necessary to explain the rotation patterns. It's a CURRENT driven process in EU galactic rotation models. The mainstream won't even embrace the CONCEPT of currents in space.

 

[Michael]

Most likely a WIMP particle. In case my best guess is some type of particle we have not detected yet.

LHC Excludes SUSY Theories, Theorists Clinch Hands

FYI, as I pointed out to DaneaFL, SUSY theories have little/no support in the lab, in fact the simplest versions have already been eliminated based on the data acquired to date. Assuming such particles are eventually discovered, there is no guarantee that any of them will possess the necessary properties like longevity to plug the gaps of mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques.

I don't really see any conflict when a theist puts 'faith' in something that hasn't been seen in the lab. At least that behavior is consistent. Sometimes even scientists have "faith" in things they cannot see, and for which there is no empirical support.

It's only atheists that seem to subjectively and inconsistently apply the requirement for "empirical support" on some topics like dark matter, and not others topics, like the topic of God. It's the inconsistency I find objectionable.

 

[elahmine]

LHC Excludes SUSY Theories, Theorists Clinch Hands

FYI, as I pointed out to DaneaFL, SUSY theories have little/no support in the lab, in fact the simplest versions have already been eliminated based on the data acquired to date. Assuming such particles are eventually discovered, there is no guarantee that any of them will possess the necessary properties like longevity to plug the gaps of mainstream galaxy mass estimation techniques.

I don't really see any conflict when a theist puts 'faith' in something that hasn't been seen in the lab. At least that behavior is consistent. Sometimes even scientists have "faith" in things they cannot see, and for which there is no empirical support.

It's only atheists that seem to subjectively and inconsistently apply the requirement for "empirical support" on some topics like dark matter, and not others topics, like the topic of God. It's the inconsistency I find objectionable.

Will the LHC find supersymmetry? - physicsworld.com

The above link is a link to the article your article was based on. The search for WIMP particles is still enforce at least with the people I know that are into dark matter research. As it stands today there may be an issue with supersymmetry and there may not. I am open to either possibility. I take issue with the standard model anyways for many reasons. I don't understand why you chose to go on about faith from scientists and Christians. No one knows what dark matter is so scientist make hypothesis and then test them. You can't find dark matter if your not doing the former, and no one does one test and then that's all a sudden the answer especially with particles. Things have to be tested over and over again.

 

[Michael]

Will the LHC find supersymmetry? - physicsworld.com

The above link is a link to the article your article was based on. The search for WIMP particles is still enforce at least with the people I know that are into dark matter research. As it stands today there may be an issue with supersymmetry and there may not.

I was more interested in the fact that SUSY theory enjoys no empirical support at this present moment in time.

I am open to either possibility. I take issue with the standard model anyways for many reasons.

That's certainly your prerogative. I take exception to standard cosmology theory myself. Good luck with that.

I don't understand why you chose to go on about faith from scientists and Christians.

From your theistic perspective, it's probably an irrelevant issue. A lot of atheists however tend to believe that "faith" in the unseen (in the lab) is a dirty word. In fact "faith" plays a very important role even in "science".

No one knows what dark matter is so scientist make hypothesis and then test them. You can't find dark matter if your not doing the former, and no one does one test and then that's all a sudden the answer especially with particles. Things have to be tested over and over again.

FYI, the fact that SUSY theory can be empirically 'tested' and eventually 'falsified' makes it the LEAST objectionable part of mainstream cosmology theory from my perspective. I'm a lot more turned off by concepts like dark energy and inflation that simply have no way be falsified or verified empirically in controlled conditions.

What's noteworthy however as it relates to the science of COSMOLOGY (rather than particle physics) is that even *IF* additional particles are eventually discovered at LHC, there is no guarantee that any of them will have the properties required (like longevity) to plug the gaps of mainstream cosmology theory, even if they do plug the holes of mainstream particle physics theories. Cosmologists not only have FAITH that that additional particles exist, they have FAITH in various PROPERTIES that such particles will likely possess. However, when their own models (in this case galaxy mass layout models) are put to the "test", they FAILED yet again, for the forth time in four years!

 

[elahmine]

I was more interested in the fact that SUSY theory enjoys no empirical support at this present moment in time.

That's certainly your prerogative. I take exception to standard cosmology theory myself. Good luck with that.

From your theistic perspective, it's probably an irrelevant issue. A lot of atheists however tend to believe that "faith" in the unseen (in the lab) is a dirty word. In fact "faith" plays a very important role even in "science".

FYI, the fact that SUSY theory can be empirically 'tested' and eventually 'falsified' makes it the LEAST objectionable part of mainstream cosmology theory from my perspective. I'm a lot more turned off by concepts like dark energy and inflation that simply have no way be falsified or verified empirically in controlled conditions.

What's noteworthy however as it relates to the science of COSMOLOGY (rather than particle physics) is that even *IF* additional particles are eventually discovered at LHC, there is no guarantee that any of them will have the properties required (like longevity) to plug the gaps of mainstream cosmology theory, even if they do plug the holes of mainstream particle physics theories. Cosmologists not only have FAITH that that additional particles exist, they have FAITH in various PROPERTIES that such particles will likely possess. However, when their own models (in this case galaxy mass layout models) are put to the "test", they FAILED yet again, for the forth time in four years!

WIMP particles existence is a part of the standard model of particle physics. I am not talking although cosmology per se here. I'll ignore the Dark Energy/inflation stuff now. Although if you're interested I have actually been to an event with Brian Schimdt, the man that discovered it. Beside that point, scientist have been looking for alternative models for years now, and just like with neutrinos that seemed to move faster than light, it necessary to retest to make sure there weren't any errors in the experiment. But anyways I'm done debating about a standard model that I'm not even sure is the correct model anyways.

 

[Michael]

WIMP particles existence is a part of the standard model of particle physics.

Hmm. I've only ever heard the term associated with astrophysics and supersymmetry, but perhaps there are other extensions to the standard theory that include them? AFAIK WIMPS are NOT required to complete the standard theory, just the Higgs.
'
Weakly interacting massive particles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WIMP-like particles are predicted by R-parity-conserving supersymmetry, a popular type of extension to the standard model, although none of the large number of new particles in supersymmetry have been observed.

I am not talking although cosmology per se here.

Ah, well my "background" is more from the astrophysics side, so maybe the terms get muddled somewhere in the process. Astrophysicists tend come up with THE most confusing terms possible in my experience.

I'll ignore the Dark Energy/inflation stuff now. Although if you're interested I have actually been to an event with Brian Schimdt, the man that discovered it. Beside that point, scientist have been looking for alternative models for years now, and just like with neutrinos that seemed to move faster than light, it necessary to retest to make sure there weren't any errors in the experiment. But anyways I'm done debating about a standard model that I'm not even sure is the correct model anyways.

FYI, I'm personally more into Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory these days. More than 90% of the known universe is composed of material in the plasma state, so it's only logical that the physics of the universe is directly related to plasma physics. PC/EU theory is a bit more "conservative" in terms of inventing new terms or new forces of nature (like dark energy). While I'm sure Brian is a wonderful man and great scientist, we probably wouldn't agree on his "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. Even still, it might make for a fun conversation over dinner.

 

[elahmine]

Hmm. I've only ever heard the term associated with astrophysics and supersymmetry, but perhaps there are other extensions to the standard theory that include them? AFAIK WIMPS are NOT required to complete the standard theory, just the Higgs.
'
Weakly interacting massive particles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ah, well my "background" is more from the astrophysics side, so maybe the terms get muddled somewhere in the process. Astrophysicists tend come up with THE most confusing terms possible in my experience.

FYI, I'm personally more into Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory these days. More than 90% of the known universe is composed of material in the plasma state, so it's only logical that the physics of the universe is directly related to plasma physics. PC/EU theory is a bit more "conservative" in terms of inventing new terms or new forces of nature (like dark energy). While I'm sure Brian is a wonderful man and great scientist, we probably wouldn't agree on his "interpretation" of the redshift phenomenon. Even still, it might make for a fun conversation over dinner.

When I said standard model I was just trying to talk about particle physics in particular not cosmology. Particle physics is often referred to as the standard model.

 

[Michael]

When I said standard model I was just trying to talk about particle physics in particular not cosmology. Particle physics is often referred to as the standard model.

Whereas in my lingo and world, the term "standard model" typically refers to a solar model, or a cosmology theory.