number rule
number rule
37 comments
-
-
1+1=3
Hypothesize there's an extra 1 out there we don't know about yet
Relentlessly test hypothesis for decades
Every test lines up with hypothesis
Relentlessly move humanity's understanding of physics forward in a search for more information
Get made fun of by dumb fucks who struggle with division
-
This is the most-tested, best-proven scientific theory humanity has known. For some reason, it completely breaks if you remove these Wingdings characters we added to the code.
-
i thought that was evolution
-
-
Is this how dark matter works? (That's the joke, right?)
-
Although we haven't observed dark matter on a microscopic scale, we have been measuring the effects of dark matter on a macro level for decades.
-
As far as I understand it, the way stars, planets, gas clouds and galaxies move wouldn't make sense with just the gravity of the visible objects. There needs to be so-far-undetectable (directly, at least) dark matter in the otherwise empty space? I don't really remember if it was understood to be a universally equal distribution, or if it is understood to be concentrated in blobs/clouds/noodles or whatever.
I don't really have a lot at stake riding on it, while it's interesting physics and to an extent I care about it, I don't really care enough to either ridicule, push for solid answers "NOW", hunt down frauds, etc.. Some people really care about that, I don't really take it that seriously. I don't think life should be a rat race where you're either immediately useful and correct, or cut off and dead. The scientific consensus seems to be that there isn't really a good alternative to dark matter. Was it string theory that tried? I might be misremembering, but as far as I've heard, that's basically dismissed and disproven regardless of whether it had anything to do with dark matter.
On a final note, is there any reason to expect that the giant deep Antarctic ice-telescope will be able to observe dark matter? Apparently it's supposed to be able to pick up on wavelenghts that we so far haven't had the chance to observe, iirc by triangulating rare flashes of light from neutrino collisions with particles in the extraordinarily clear ice.
-
-
Basically yeah
-
-
Besides everything thats been said, unknowns and variables are a pretty common concept in maths...
-
You forgot to scale by an arbitrary "heuristic" constant to mask the excess of simplification of the models.
Details in the supplementary information
-
It's okay since the 1s are dimensionless and so is the 3.
37 comments
Let's pretend that you have a basket with 100 apples. You know apples are about 100g each, because you weighed 10 of the them and all of the apples seem about the same size. You know that basket weighs 1000g. You put the whole thing on a scale and find it weighs 500,000g. You know something else is in that basket. You aren't sure what, and frankly it doesn't make sense, but trying different scales and remeasuring more individual apples gives the same result. So you decide that there must be something you can't see but must exist. That's dark matter/energy.
No... it's dark apples
The worst pie - Dark Apple Pie. QED
The scale probably just can't measure the apples all together that way. Maybe it's not calibrated to see all the different ways apples can interact. Maybe time to go back to the scale drawing board.
That's that funny thing, they've tried different scales. They've tried radically different ways of measuring it, and always come up with the same discrepancy.
If summing energy works differently on a large scale, why? Since we don't know what we can do is start measuring the difference between observable energy and the "extra" that appears when we add it up. We could call that "unobservable energy" so we can see if there is a pattern, or if it's actually something else. You know "unobservable energy" is a mouthful, why not just call it dark energy?
We don't know what it is. We have tested lots of theories and dark energy doesn't seem to fit any answer, hence the name. I get thinking that it can't be that hard to reconcile and scientists must be missing an obvious conclusion, but it's likely that your theory has already been tested. Maybe you have the solution and can resolve the discrepancy, but right now all data shows that dark energy is a large part of the universe.
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Dark matter has been proven numerous times, is a predictive model, and is the only explanation that has held up to scrutiny and observations. It's very clearly the right explanation and we know how dark matter generally behaves, we just don't know specifically what it is.
See, for example, the behavior of the bullet cluster merger.
Why isn't it called "cold matter"?
Don't we just not see it because it's not burning?
Couldn't the unseen mass be clouds, planets and black wholes?
As far as we're aware, dark matter only interacts with the universe gravitationally. It doesn't even interact with itself, which is why we don't see dark planets/stars/galaxies popping into existence. It only follows normal matter around.
As for why it's not called cold, is for two reasons:
If it happened to be clouds of gas and dust that overall had a net gravitational effect on the background galaxies, we'd be able to detect the spectral lines of these clouds. Same for just about all the other objects in that list. In some cases we do detect intergalactic gas clouds. But in places where there's very clearly unaccounted for gravitational lensing, there isn't any sign of this. So far the only things we can match up to the observations is a mathematical model of the stuff.
No, because those would also interact with other things like electromagnetic radiation, light, etc. Dark matter only interacts with normal matter via gravity.
Dark matter is admittedly a bit of a misnomer but that's what everyone's been using for years 🤷🏻♂️