Is the dark matter hypothesis even falsifiable?

[Michael]

If we can't celebrate the discovery of Bigfoot the next best thing is to celebrate the search for Bigfoot.

And don't forget, celebrations are good for fund raising.

 

[Michael]

You gotta wonder just how long this charade can last. We've already spent *billions* (with a B) of dollars/euros testing their beliefs, and we've found exactly *zero* evidence to support their belief in exotic forms of matter.

Whatever "missing mass" might be present in those lensing studies from 2006, we have *zero* evidence that any of it is exotic in nature, and *tons* of evidence to demonstrate that they simply underestimated the amount of ordinary baryonic mass in those galaxy clusters.

In just the past 5 years we've found more "missing mass" in the form of a million degree plasma halo, and in the form of non-ionized hydrogen gas halo around the galaxy, than all the other known matter of our own galaxy. We also underestimated whole *stars* those distant galaxy clusters by a whopping factor of between 3 and 20 times depending on the size of the star and the type of galaxy. We even underestimated the number of stars *between galaxies* in various galaxy clusters.

The LCMD cosmology model simply cannot survive without exotic matter in very specific percentages, therefore the mainstream put together a 'dark matter" day to try to fool the public yet again. The only fitting part was the day they selected.

 

[Michael]

Dark-matter constraints tightened after LUX no-shows - physicsworld.com

It turns out that LUX wasn't a total loss. They did shrink the gaps for WIMPS to hide in (again).

 

[Michael]

So when exactly do we pull the plug on this concept?

We have discovered two different types of "halos" of hot plasma and cooler hydrogen gas around our own galaxy in the past 5 years just as the mathematical models of dark matter predicted, and every single "test" of exotic forms of matter have been 100 useless at "predicting" any empirical results from the lab. Dark matter has to be the single most 'tested' hypothesis in the history of physics at the moment in terms of money spent on it, yet there is still no empirical laboratory evidence to support it.

Not only do those two halos and many other various other stellar mass estimation problem in that 2006 lensing study make the exotic matter concept irrelevant and unlikely, every single billion and million dollar lab test has produced absolutely no sign of the stuff.

Exotic matter isn't even necessary to explain any type of distant lensing observations or galaxy rotation patterns. It's only useful purpose is keeping *one* otherwise falsified cosmology theory from being "falsified".

Dark matter theory is the ultimate invisible snipe hunt. There are an infinite potential number of different definitions of that term, and an infinite potential number of postdicted mathematical models that might be created to describe it. There is no clear physical definition of the term to start with, and no number of null results seems to have even the *slightest* effect on the dogma, let alone offer us any possible way to "falsify" the claim outright.

If DM theory cannot be falsified in a conventional scientific/empirical manner, then no part of LCDM theory could *ever* be falsified. Of the four supernatural components of the LCMD model, only DM even has the ability to show up in a lab to start with, and it's been a complete laboratory disaster in terms of offering us any useful predictive value.

 

[Michael]

Happy 5th anniversary, Higgs boson! | CERN

It's worth noting that LHC discovered the Higgs Boson five years ago, and in doing so, it completed the standard particle physics model.

Over the five years since finding the last missing puzzle piece of the standard particle physics model, LHC has also confirmed the various predictions of the standard model with *stunning* accuracy, while ruling out all the most common non-standard models. There has never been a better predictive model in physics than the standard particle physics model.

Compare and contrast that incredible track record of the standard particle physics model to "dark matter" predictions which have been 100 percent *useless* when it comes to making accurate laboratory predictions.

SUSY theory in particular was *decimated* by those same LHC results and that was the leading alternative to the standard particle physic model prior to LHC.

Not only is there no evidence to support exotic matter models, the LHC results have confirmed the accuracy of the standard particle physics model over and over and over again.

Dark matter theory is just lame. It's only useful purpose is to save one otherwise falsified cosmology model from instant destruction. That's it.

 

[Michael]

Not that we really need to find a lot more missing mass to explain 'dark matter', it turns out that our own Milky Way galaxy could also contain perhaps a hundred billion brown dwarfs which are very difficult to spot, and we keep finding new satellite galaxies all the time.

https://phys.org/news/2017-07-milky-billion-brown-dwarfs.html

 

[ruthiesea]

There was a recent deep space observation that proved the null hypothesis, therefore, supporting the theory of dark matter.

 

[Michael]

There was a recent deep space observation that proved the null hypothesis, therefore, supporting the theory of dark matter.

Do you have a reference to the observation that you're talking about? I would think if you "proved" the NULL hypothesis, you'd eliminate the claim, not support it.

Welcome to CF by the way.

 

[ruthiesea]

Do you have a reference to the observation that you're talking about? I would think if you "proved" the NULL hypothesis, you'd eliminate the claim, not support it.

Welcome to CF by the way.

The null hypothesis says that the results of the experiment supports the theory. The hypothesis is that unexpected findings will result, invalidating the theory in whole or in part.

 

[Michael]

The null hypothesis says that the results of the experiment supports the theory. The hypothesis is that unexpected findings will result, invalidating the theory in whole or in part.

I think you have that backwards. A "null hypothesis" is typically a prediction of what we might expect from an experiment if a proposed hypothetical entity does *not* exist. In other words, it's a set of predictions related to the *non-existence* of the item in question.

For instance, SUSY theories predicted that we would find various "sparticles" at LHC. A "null prediction" would predict that they would not find any such"sparticles". They didn't find any such sparticles at LHC, so the null hypothesis was correct. SUSY theories which predicted sparticles to be present in the energy states explored by the LHC were all incorrect.

A hypothesis about the existence of something has to set itself apart from the null hypothesis in order to 'test' various ideas.

In the case of 'dark matter' experiments, the null hypothesis has *always* been correct, and any 'predictions' made by dark matter proponents failed. Even still, the dark matter snipe hunt continues unabated.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

A "null hypothesis" is typically a prediction of what we might expect from an experiment if a proposed hypothetical entity does *not* exist. In other words, it's a set of predictions related to the *non-existence* of the item in question.

For instance, SUSY theories predicted that we would find various "sparticles" at LHC. A "null prediction" would predict that they would not find any such"sparticles". They didn't find any such sparticles at LHC, so the null hypothesis was correct. SUSY theories which predicted sparticles to be present in the energy states explored by the LHC were all incorrect.

A hypothesis about the existence of something has to set itself apart from the null hypothesis in order to 'test' various ideas.

In the case of 'dark matter' experiments, the null hypothesis has *always* been correct, and any 'predictions' made by dark matter proponents failed. Even still, the dark matter snipe hunt continues unabated.

It's not quite as black and white as that. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis isn't rejected, but that doesn't necessarily mean the alternative (proposed) hypothesis is falsified (until the null hypothesis is shown to be beyond reasonable doubt). If the data are not consistent with the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis is rejected, but that doesn't necessarily mean the alternative (proposed) hypothesis is validated (there might be some other reason for that data).

 

[Michael]

It's not quite as black and white as that. If the data are consistent with the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis isn't rejected, but that doesn't necessarily mean the alternative (proposed) hypothesis is falsified (until the null hypothesis is shown to be beyond reasonable doubt). If the data are not consistent with the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis is rejected, but that doesn't necessarily mean the alternative (proposed) hypothesis is validated (there might be some other reason for that data).

So what *would* actually falsify the mainstream's claims about exotic forms of matter? We've already spent *billions* supposedly "testing" their various mathematical models, and not a single one of them has panned out.

Likewise, the baryonic mass estimates which have been used to justify exotic matter claims from cosmology have been repeatedly shown to be riddled with with serious errors.

What's the point of even doing any experiments on the topic of exotic matter if the mainstream refuses to take "no" for an answer?

 

[lesliedellow]

I see Michael is engaged in his favourite pastime of preaching the Gospel According to St Alfven to himself.

 

[Michael]

I see Michael is engaged in his favourite pastime of preaching the Gospel According to St Alfven to himself.

Actually at the moment I'm just noting the serious problems with mainstream cosmology theory.

It should be possible to reject one cosmology theory based on it's lack of empirical merits, with or without embracing any other cosmology theory.

It's not my fault that the mainstream gave Alfven the Nobel prize in MHD theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So what *would* actually falsify the mainstream's claims about exotic forms of matter?
...
What's the point of even doing any experiments on the topic of exotic matter if the mainstream refuses to take "no" for an answer?

As I've repeatedly told you, I'm not an astrophysicist or cosmologist - if you really want to know, ask the people involved.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's not my fault that the mainstream gave Alfven the Nobel prize in MHD theory.

Sounds like what some fans of Newton's work would have said - "The establishment think Principia is brilliant, so why won't they accept his work on alchemy and the occult??"

 

[Michael]

As I've repeatedly told you, I'm not an astrophysicist or cosmologist - if you really want to know, ask the people involved.

They don't have any better answer than you do or they would have posted it by now. I've yet to see anyone, anywhere answer that question in fact.

 

[Michael]

Sounds like what some fans of Newton's work would have said - "The establishment think Principia is brilliant, so why won't they accept his work on alchemy and the occult??"

That's a completely ridiculous comparison because everything that Alfven proposed is/was based on pure empirical lab tested physics. There's nothing "occult" about it, unlike LCDM which is at *least* 95 percent "occult" dark invisible stuff. How is exotic dark matter not an example of a belief in black magic, particularly after it's string of lab failures?

Whatever Alfven's faults, his beliefs all worked (and still work) in the lab.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They don't have any better answer than you do or they would have posted it by now. I've yet to see anyone, anywhere answer that question in fact.

Have you actually asked them?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's a completely ridiculous comparison because everything that Alfven proposed is/was based on pure empirical lab tested physics.

It was a tease - note the smiley.