Is dark energy and matter just made up?

[Pulchra]

I mean, when the suns burn energy the heat get`s old right and floats through space, does it take the place of this so-called dark energy or do they mix, or is dark energy just nonsense to begin with and does this old energy from the suns become black holes when it gathers?

 

[Freodin]

I mean, when the suns burn energy the heat get`s old right and floats through space, does it take the place of this so-called dark energy or do they mix, or is dark energy just nonsense to begin with and does this old energy from the suns become black holes when it gathers?

"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are nothing like that.

Yes, in a sense, they are "made up". Or, a better description, they are "inferred".
These concepts are called "Dark" not for some sinister reason, but because we cannot "see" them. In a similar way, the collapsed remains of extremely heavy stars are called "Black Holes", because they don't emit light.

Still, "Black Holes" are made up of something that we know: the normal matter we see all around us... just in a very specific form, with very specific effects.
"Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are assumed to be something very different, so we cannot directly detect them with our usual methods.
But we can detect the effect they have on the "normal" stuff, and from that infer that there would have to be "something".

 

[Lazarus Short]

Black holes, dark matter and dark energy were made up to satisfy the equations of a science that has moved from experiment/observation to detached theory. If you cannot measure or observe your subject, you have left science behind.

 

[durangodawood]

Black holes, dark matter and dark energy were made up to satisfy the equations of a science that has moved from experiment/observation to detached theory. If you cannot measure or observe your subject, you have left science behind.

I dont think so. Its fair for science to provisionally hypothesize solutions that might require future confirmation, so long as you acknowledge that status.

 

[Gene2memE]

Black holes, dark matter and dark energy were made up to satisfy the equations of a science that has moved from experiment/observation to detached theory. If you cannot measure or observe your subject, you have left science behind.

Black holes have been observed. The Event Horizon Telescope did so directly in 2019. There's also been growing numbers of detections of the gravity waves produced from black hole mergers.

As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, the issue is that their existence has to be inferred. There are multiple lines of concordant evidence that suggest their existence, but if they are truly 'dark' demonstrating their existence via anything other than second hand effects may be impossible.

Its either that, or we need a totally new understanding of gravity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean, when the suns burn energy the heat get`s old right and floats through space, does it take the place of this so-called dark energy or do they mix, or is dark energy just nonsense to begin with and does this old energy from the suns become black holes when it gathers?

No.

(My response is commensurate with the question.)

 

[Shemjaza]

I mean, when the suns burn energy the heat get`s old right and floats through space, does it take the place of this so-called dark energy or do they mix, or is dark energy just nonsense to begin with and does this old energy from the suns become black holes when it gathers?

No, dark energy and dark matter are not simply made up.

Black holes, dark matter and dark energy were made up to satisfy the equations of a science that has moved from experiment/observation to detached theory. If you cannot measure or observe your subject, you have left science behind.

That is probably a reasonable criticism of string "theory", as a group of inferences from mathematical estimations of physics.

I feel it is not a reasonable characterisation of dark matter and dark energy.

Dark matter and dark energy are not purely theoretical concepts from high level models... they are applied to physical observations of the real universe.

We have a comprehensive, if incomplete, knowledge of gravity and relativity from examining large and small objects in our Solar system. These ideas also work when applied to other star systems... but on a scale of galaxies and galactic clusters there are visibly other, different forces at work.

These observed forces are labelled "dark" because we don't have a direct object or source we can see.

(A poster on this form, AV1611Vet, had the wonderfully evocative idea that dark matter is the "chains of darkness" binding the fallen angels between the stars.)

 

[Halbhh]

I mean, when the suns burn energy the heat get`s old right and floats through space, does it take the place of this so-called dark energy or do they mix, or is dark energy just nonsense to begin with and does this old energy from the suns become black holes when it gathers?

The terms are just placeholders.

Temporary names for what is currently unknown/not yet understood. For instance "dark matter" because something is happening like matter is there of an unknown kind that emits no radiation of any kind, so it is "dark" presumably in that it doesn't emit EM radiation we have detected (nor other kinds).

Most galaxies spin much faster in their outer regions than the mass in their stars and other matter we know about can explain. Ergo, we think there is more mass of some unknown kind, to give that extra gravity. A similar effect happens in how these galaxies bend light by their gravitation -- it shows more gravitation than ordinary matter we know about accounts for, by a large margin.

 

[Ophiolite]

I dont think so. Its fair for science to provisionally hypothesize solutions that might require future confirmation, so long as you acknowledge that status.

Indeed, if such attempts to extend our understanding were not practiced then science would be reduced to nothing more than a catalogue of knowledge.

 

[durangodawood]

Indeed, if such attempts to extend our understanding were not practiced then science would be reduced to nothing more than a catalogue of knowledge.

Right. I think the template some people were taught has Prof Labcoat making a hypothesis on Monday, experimentally testing the hypothesis on Tuesday, and publishing the results on Wednesday. The step 1-2 gap throws people off.

 

[SelfSim]

I dont think so. Its fair for science to provisionally hypothesize solutions that might require future confirmation, so long as you acknowledge that status.

i) All scientific conclusions (even facts) are contextual and provisional. Your use of provisional in the phrase 'provisonally hypothesize', is thereby moot, and adds nothing to distinguish what is an 'hypothesis', from what isn't.

ii) Science doesn't seek 'future confirmation' because there is no premise to 'confirm' in testing an hypothesis. If this were so, then every conceivable hypothesis would be subject to confirmation against your already known so-called 'solution' .. (which simply denies the existence of pure research into the unknown).

iii) 'Acknowledging the status' is optional, as pre-test verification data from linked topic areas establishes the consistency of the context of a given hypothesis. Acknowledging status is a philosophical choice, which happens to open the gateway to every conceivable way of thinking about an hypothesis .. including philosopically based judgements on its invalidity (or inappropriateness), even before testing commmences.

Indeed, if such attempts to extend our understanding were not practiced then science would be reduced to nothing more than a catalogue of knowledge.

Science develops a catalogue of objective knowledge.
(Sorry if that disappoints ..)

 

[durangodawood]

i) All scientific conclusions (even facts) are contextual and provisional.....

Then you cant call them "conclusions".

See how we can get ultra fussy about our language?

I understand its important to use words with a certain amount of precision in these sort of discussions. But I think its pretty clear from the context I presented how "provisional" was a perfectly good word.

 

[SelfSim]

Right. I think the template some people were taught has Prof Labcoat making a hypothesis on Monday, experimentally testing the hypothesis on Tuesday, and publishing the results on Wednesday. The step 1-2 gap throws people off.

i) Scientists are humans and some wear labcoats.
Those put off by what people wear aren't thinking scientifically (and probably won't undestand the results or conclusions anyway).

ii) The gap between steps (1) and (2) is very much about eliminating bias and ensuring process integrity.
'Throwing people off' during that stage is not a significant concern.

 

[SelfSim]

Then you cant call them "conclusions".

See how we can get ultra fussy about our language?

I understand its important to use words with a certain amount of precision in these sort of discussions. But I think its pretty clear from the context I presented how "provisional" was a perfectly good word.

Hmm .. conclusions are inferences but the point is that there is substantial objective evidence that those inferred conclusions change with new data.
IOW, the reasons underpinning my claim there, is extensively objectively historically evidenced .. regardless of the word choice.
All of science's terms are operational .. which means they have either already been tested and verified as consistent, or are obectively testable and are thus consistent.

 

[durangodawood]

Hmm .. conclusions are inferences but the point is that there is substantial objective evidence that those inferred conclusions change with new data.
IOW, the reasons underpinning my claim there, is extensively objectively historically evidenced .. regardless of the word choice.
All of science's terms are operational .. which means they have either already been tested and verified as consistent, or are obectively testable and are thus consistent.

I should note, the degree of precision of language and specific word choices I'm using are the same that I hear scientists using all the time in presentations like Sean Carrol's Mindscape podcast. Sean Carroll’s Mindscape Podcast – Sean Carroll Where working scientists in many disciplines discuss their work and the state of their fields more broadly.

Perhaps from the point of view of a philosophy of science textbook they are speaking a little too loosely. Yet these scientists, in the thick of it, are perfectly fine using words like "confirm" or "provisional" the way I did, or "conclusion" like you did. Everyone there knows what the basic philosophical background is and so no one speaks like a science-lawyer. Thats what I'm doing here, and so is everybody else. Even you too, when you let your guard slip.

Btw, whats your background with this? You seem pretty driven on this topic.

 

[SelfSim]

I should note, the degree of precision of language and specific word choices I'm using are the same that I hear scientists using all the time in presentations like Sean Carrol's Mindscape podcast. Sean Carroll’s Mindscape Podcast – Sean Carroll Where working scientists in many disciplines discuss their work and the state of their fields more broadly.

Discussing their work is discussing it .. not doing it.

Perhaps from the point of view of a philosophy of science textbook they are speaking a little too loosely. Yet these scientists, in the thick of it, are perfectly fine using words like "confirm" or "provisional" the way I did, or "conclusion" like you did. Everyone there knows what the basic philosophical background is and so no one speaks like a science-lawyer. Thats what I'm doing here, and so is everybody else. Even you too, when you let your guard slip.

And what 'basic philosophical background' are you assuming there?

Its true that I speak both formally and informally.
Do you understand how to distinguish the two respective contexts and why its important not to conflate the two? (Eg: such as the notion of 'hypothesizing solutions' for 'future confirmation').

Btw, whats your background with this? You seem pretty driven on this topic.

I see many misconceptions on scientific matters stemming from already held (fixed) philosophical positions around these parts ..

There’s no need for you to worry about my background in science. I’ve convinced those who matter when it comes to my performance in the relevant topics .. (long before joining this site).

 

[durangodawood]

Discussing their work is discussing it .. not doing it....

Which is exactly what we're also doing here: discussing. My point was when we're discussing here, I'm fine using the sort of language that scientists use to talk to each other and the public about their work.

There’s no need for you to worry about my background in science. I’ve convinced those who matter when it comes to my performance in the relevant topics .. (long before joining this site).

Ooh anointed by those "who matter".

*bows down*

 

[SelfSim]

Which is exactly what we're also doing here: discussing. My point was when we're discussing here, I'm fine using the sort of language that scientists use to talk to each other and the public about their work.

Sloppy driving causes accidents.
Sloppy thinking about science’s process goals, ultimately undermines science.

In a thread revolving around the principle of conservation of energy throughout the universe, in a physical sciences forum, I choose to preserve precision in that conversation.

Ooh anointed by those "who matter".
*bows down*

Pffft ... I said 'convinced' and not 'anointed'.
Do you also think Sean Carroll has been 'anointed'?

 

[Ophiolite]

Science develops a catalogue of objective knowledge.
(Sorry if that disappoints ..)

Do stop trolling. You are not so inept in your reading comprehension that you are unable to distinguish between
" . . . .reduced to nothing more than a catalogue of knowledge"
"One product of the scientific process is a catalogue of knowledge"

 

[SelfSim]

You are not so inept in your reading comprehension that you are unable to distinguish between ...

Lol! I can see we are making good progress then!
Goal achieved!
(I'll add your post to my bookmarks folder .. with enthusiasm!)