Dark matter and Dark energy

[BeAChooser]

I happen to know a fair number of big guns in several fields of science, and it would be laughable for them to spend their valuable time attempting to debunk every far out theory that came along.

But the particular example I've cited in this thread was not a "far out" theory ... it was just inserting known laws of gravity AND ELECTROMAGNETISM into point in cell codes that are used every day on earth for all sorts of complicated physics and looking at the result. What is sad is that the largest computer model of the universe ever made ... one just recently announced which is searching for the effects of dark matter, etc ... STILL did not include anything but the effects of gravity in it.

They would be risking their reputations just by doing so.

The only reason they would be risking their reputations (or more precisely their funding and jobs) is that their funding sources are controlled by Big Bang supporters who are highly antagonistic towards ANY non-gravity or non-Big Bang alternatives that are offered. Perhaps it's because those who control the funding don't understand the complexities of electromagnetism since they likely grew up in a time when it wasn't included in any course on astronomy or astrophysics (and even now only a somewhat distorted version of that is taught to most students in those disciplines). Or perhaps they just don't want to rock the boat or kill the goose laying the golden eggs. Either way, the effect is the same.

 

[Olowkow]

But the particular example I've cited in this thread was not a "far out" theory ...

Again, the only reason I call it "far out" is that I read about Alfven, and it was not inspiring. Also, the argument that there are no rebuttals is not a strong point for me at least.

Or perhaps they just don't want to rock the boat or kill the goose laying the golden eggs. Either way, the effect is the same.

Well, all I know is what I see, and I have to agree with the sentiments of "edd" above on this one. Unfortunately I can't go into details though. I was in the "publish or perish" business years ago also, and I know the pressure scientists must feel.

Quote from edd:

My funding opportunities and future prospects would increase I'd bet. There'd be something new and exciting to investigate, after all. My job and reputation would similarly be safe provided I acted like any good scientist and recognised that new observations should prompt me to change my perspective and pursue currently relevant research interests.

Quote from BAC:

Is that another way of saying you have a vested interest? Out of curiousity, what would happen to your job, funding, reputation and future prospects if it was concluded that dark matter isn't needed to explain galactic rotation curves and thus dark matter might not be available to help explain the formation of galaxies at all? Hmmmm?

From my experience, over 20 years, almost to a person these researchers are flat out devoted to what they are doing to the point of being eccentric, but certainly no "golden egg" syndrome there. I've seen them think and read their work. I've witnessed their pride in their students. I've helped some with their grammar on papers, poring over the minutia of each footnote.

They do go where the money is of course, but if they can knock down a claim through research...they will. And if they can publish anything new...they will. I feel that what you say above is extremely rare...but anything is possible in this regard of course. There were a few notable cases of fudging data recently, and of course Pons and Fleischman. But, hey, a few bad apples?

 

[BeAChooser]

Axis of Evil. ... snip ... There's other interesting anomalies, but none are overwhelmingly bizarre, and none are enough to undermine the general principles of the standard model of cosmology.

Starkman's statement that it might challenge inflation theory would be rather significant undermining of the standard model, I think. And as to bizarre ... I'll let our readers be the judge: http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19225811.300 .

Quote:
The quasar finding has support from another study, however. Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor analysed 1660 spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and found that the axes of rotation of most galaxies appear to line up with the axis of evil (www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0703325). According to Longo, the probability of this happening by chance is less than 0.4 per cent. "This suggests the axis is real, and not simply an error in the WMAP data," he says."

Actually there's more than a few open questions on this front, and one shouldn't be too quick to assume that it's a problem with the Big Bang.

But would you at least agree that the above suggests something other than "just gravity" is going on out there? Something involving electromagnetism, perhaps?

but that seriously competitive alternative points of view are taken seriously and critically and handled appropriately.

Any of them ever mention Dr Peratt or his work? If not, why don't you ask them about it. And wouldn't an appropriate response to his peer-reviewed articles and calculations have been calculations to see if he was right? If anyone did such a calculations, wouldn't the appropriate thing have been to publish the results and either confirm or dispute his findings? Sorry, but it continues to look to me like they simply ignored his work and I don't see a good reason for them to have done that.

My job and reputation would similarly be safe provided I acted like any good scientist and recognised that new observations should prompt me to change my perspective and pursue currently relevant research interests.

But then we are all human and the natural tendency in most people is to defend the status quo long after we should have stopped defending it.

By the way, here's another peculiar observation that the mainstream ignores and that seems counter to the notion that only gravity is influencing what is going on out there:

Here's a 1994 paper by Arp (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...430...74A&db_key=AST&high=40f19ad6db11758) that shows an alignment between galaxies in the Local Group. "It is shown that 22 out of 22 major companions have redshifts that are positive with respect to the dominant galaxy. The chance that this can be an accidental configuration of velocities is only one in four million. Investigations of more distant groups, including clusters such as Virgo, show that the smaller galaxies characteristically have systematically positive redshifts with respect to the larger ones. No selection effects or contamination are capable of avoiding this result."

Here's an image of this Local Group alignment

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/051104localgroup.jpg

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051104localgroup.htm where it is discussed thus: "The Local Group, of which our Milky Way is a member, stretches in a line along the minor axis of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which is the dominant galaxy in the group. In the image above, the filled circles mark the locations of accepted members. Open circles and plus signs mark the locations of higher-redshift dwarf and spiral galaxies respectively. (Although in other clusters similar dwarfs and spirals are accepted as companions of the larger galaxies, these dwarfs and spirals are excluded because their systematically higher redshifts are too obvious.) Redshifts of several objects are printed beside their names. Long-exposure photographs of this area reveal a cloud of low-luminosity material extending along this line of galaxies and engulfing them. That the higher-redshift galaxies are not “background objects” is shown by their interaction with the cloud: The interacting pair of galaxies, NGC935/IC1801, have a semicircle of brighter material around them. NGC918 has a jet that ends in a bright region of the cloud. The high-redshift radio galaxy, 3C120, is most famous for its “faster-than-light” jet. Astronomers have measured the movements of knots of material in the jet. If the galaxy is located where the redshift-equals-distance theory dictates, the knots would have to be traveling six times the speed of light. But if 3C120 is a member of the Local Group, the knots would be traveling at only four percent of the speed of light. Not shown in the diagram are the line of quasars extending across M33 and the cluster of quasars close around 3C120. In addition, low surface brightness galaxies, with redshifts between .015 and .018, cluster around these two galaxies."

Here's another article, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510654, that seems to corroborate the existence of this alignment. So far, Big Bang proponents have mostly just ignored these observations, probably because they have no logical explanation for them. Their standard response seems to be that all unlikely alignments in the universe must be coincidence.

I should point out that the more conventional plasma cosmologists such as Alfven (were he alive) and Peratt might suggest that the alignment of galaxies in this case is due to their formation along gigantic Birkeland currents running through intergalactic space. They would point to evidence of other "strings" of galaxies and stars with aligned axes of rotation. Note that Peratt also thinks that quasars are formed by pinches in the Birkeland currents of galaxies. This isn't necessarily inconsistent with Narlikars solution to GR which might explain the existence of high redshift but relatively nearby QSOs. The pinches in galactic size filaments might produce sufficient density to trigger matter creation. Peratt would probably say that quasars don't become galaxies, while Arp and Narlikar have.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've never claimed to be an expert or particularly good at doing calculations.

Oh, but it's more than that. You ignore simple calculations when they're done for you. You can't even recongize the validity of calculations that are waved in front of your nose. So you just ignore them.

For one, because in many ways these problems are too difficult to be resolved on the back of a piece of paper.

But they're not too difficult to set limits on. For example, it's quite easy to show that a net electric charge on the sun becomes catastrophically unstable far below the point at which it has sufficient energy to power the sun. It's quite easy to show that the magnetic fields proposed for a galaxy our size are far too small to exert an appreciable force on the sun. Finding an accurate answer to complex models can indeed be difficult. But doing basic tests to detect major errors can be quite easy. I did them, and I found major errors. Those errors will not go away with more complex calculations.

I've always said I am relying on the expertise of others who do appear to have real credentials ... such Alfven and Peratt.

Argument from authority... but if you're not able to evaluate their proposals on the merits (and you clearly can't), why believe them and not other qualified physicists? It isn't because those two are so much better than anyone else out there. It's something else. You're a sucker for conspiracy theories, you like the idea that you've got special insight, even though you can't even do basic calculations. Well, there's no conspiracy, and you're clueless.

Lee Smolins made an interesting observation in his book, "The Trouble With Physics". That in the last 30 years or so, physics has not produced any fundamental theory that has actually had any real world consequence. For the first time in the history of science.

Cute. So now we can play games about what counts as a "fundamental theory" and what doesn't. Sorry, but I've got better things to do with my time. A lot has happened in physics within the last 30 years. For those like you who don't have enough background to understand many of the advances, it may look like nothing's been happening, but you'd be wrong.

All the wonderful technology we see daily improving our lives comes from physics laid down before the time that Big Bang cosmology, modern particle physics and string theory got such a grip on what research is funded and who gets the toys.

Well if you want to get pedantic, it was all laid down before the advent of the locomotive, too, since Newton's work still forms the bedrock of modern physics. So that statement is pretty much meaningless. And the fields you mention (cosmology in all its manifestations, particle physics, and string theory) do not make up even half of the field of physics today. Condensed matter physics dominates, by a large margin. And they've got no dog in this fight.

Oh, and the big toys? There's a lot more variety than you think.

 

[BeAChooser]

Again, the only reason I call it "far out" is that I read about Alfven, and it was not inspiring.

Hannes Alfven ... not inspiring? Surely you jest.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1970/alfven-bio.html

http://www.alfvenlab.kth.se/hannes.html

http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Alfven_Hannes_Olof_Gosta.html

Also, the argument that there are no rebuttals is not a strong point for me at least.

C'est La Vie. But science is supposed to work by scientists publishing their work in peer reviewed journals where it can be critiqued by others in order to build a consensus whether it is right or wrong. Looks like that was short circuited here.

From my experience, over 20 years, almost to a person these researchers are flat out devoted to what they are doing to the point of being eccentric, but certainly no "golden egg" syndrome there. ... snip ... They do go where the money is of course, but if they can knock down a claim through research...they will. And if they can publish anything new...they will. I feel that what you say above is extremely rare.

You really should read Lee Smolin's book ... although I have to warn you that he like most outsiders thinks all is well in the Big Bang world and that they are doing physics the way it "should be done". But reading his book, you'll see him lay out nearly the same arguments against the particle physics community that Eric Lerner laid out against the Big Bang community nearly two decades ago. Utterly fascinating. And disturbing. Because the two disciplines are now tied hand in hand, so interrelated that if one is wrong the other will probably fall like a house of cards too. Or at least require some major body work.

 

[ben m]

Um.

BAC, detectors like Soudan, SNO, UNO, and Minos are dedicated to understanding the mass and flavor structure of three known neutrinos, in the same way that BaBAR, Belle, K-TeV, etc., are dedicated to understanding the mass and flavor structure of the six known quarks. Neutrinos were once a dark matter candidate, in the same way that brown dwarf stars were once dark matter candidates---but neutrinos (like brown dwarfs) were known to exist long before astronomers knew about dark matter. If you're going to lump all neutrino research into "dark matter", you'd better lump all brown-dwarf astronomy in there, too.

IceCUBE is looking for the neutrino component of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. UHEs are not dark matter. Indeed, studying UHEs is a good way of studying energetic astrophysical plasmas---I thought you wanted more plasma research?

LSST is looking for (a) supernovae, (b) near-Earth asteroids, and (c) "weak lensing" of distant galaxies. Weak lensing is known to exist and has been observed many times---and standard cosmology associates it with dark matter. Do you think we shouldn't study weak lensing? That's like saying we shouldn't study cosmology at all. Surely your EC theorists do want actual cosmology data to compare their theories to?

Oh, yeah, and there are dozens of small dark-matter experiments, ranging from CDMS to DEAP/CLEAN to XENON. Please feel free to post the budget of these experiments after (a) you've learned the difference between a dark matter experiment and everything else, and (b) you've learned the difference between the US, Canada, and Europe. Then, for a sense of perspective, state the dark matter budget as a fraction of the US physics research budget.

As for your lauded PIC codes, you keep saying they "put in the known laws of electromagnetism". This is ridiculous---the known laws, but acting on what?? The gravity part of the code has to know what masses it's acting on; what charges, charge signs, and charge-to-mass ratios are the EM parts of the code acting on?

 

[BeAChooser]

For those like you who don't have enough background to understand many of the advances, it may look like nothing's been happening, but you'd be wrong.

Name some products we use in our daily lives or even in the lives of just a few that stem from some fundamental theory developed in the last 30 years or so. Can you do it, Ziggurat?

Condensed matter physics dominates, by a large margin. And they've got no dog in this fight.

Well according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics , the theory underlying condensed matter physics is quantum mechanics ... which was developed back in the late 1920s and 30s. "The pioneers of condensed matter physics include Felix Bloch, who created a quantum mechanical description of the behavior of electrons in crystal structures in 1928. Much of the behavior of solids was elucidated within a few years with the discovery of the Fermi surface which was based on the idea of the Pauli exclusion principle applied to systems having many electrons. The understanding of the transport properties in semiconductors as described in William Shockley's Electrons and holes in semiconductors, with applications to transistor electronics enabled the electronic revolution of the twentieth century through the development of the ubiquitous, ultra-cheap transistor. The transistor was developed by physicists John Bardeen, Walter Houser Brattain, and William Bradford Shockley in 1947 at Bell Laboratories."

All far more than 30 years ago. Sure, there is new understanding all the time but nothing as fundamental as that which was developed in the 20's and 30's. As Smolin pointed out, there's been a new theory just as fundamental (and impactful on our technology) every 30 thirty years or so since science formally began. But nothing in the last 30 years. We're basically crossing the t's and dotting the i's now.

In any case, I don't mean to lead this thread astray ... just point out that going down the wrong road in particle physics, string theory and astrophysics could have a very detrimental effect on progress in other areas ... one's that directly affects our life style, well being and future. If dark matter doesn't exist around galaxies, we've wasted at the very least a lot of resources and scientists lives looking for it.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think I've made that perfectly clear. It's called vested interests.

So it hasn't even occurred to you that the theories may actually be without value?

 

[Olowkow]

Well, very interesting...I need to read a lot more about this but I found this one quite informative in that Alfven has gotten a pretty bad rap for a long time, not clear why though.

Just one quote among many. Seems pretty even handed to me, but this whole area has the tenor of great debate, so....

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

Dessler has written of his own realization that Alfvén's contributions were being overlooked.

"When I entered the field of space physics in 1956, I recall that I fell in with the crowd believing, for example, that electric fields could not exist in the highly conducting plasma of space. It was three years later that I was shamed by S.Chandrasekhar into investigating Alfvén's work objectively. My degree of shock and surprise in finding Alfvén right and his critics wrong can hardly be described. I learned that a cosmic ray acceleration mechanism basically identical to the famous mechanism suggested by Fermi in 1949 had [previously] been put forth by Alfvén."

As I read this biography, I got the impression that he was either just not liked by his peers or perhaps they were jealous...not sure yet. I can picture the notion that "everyone" thinks a guy's ideas are crazy, then they turn out to be correct after all. I honestly cannot visualize researchers not giving credit where credit is due. That is pretty difficult to accomplish. I know, there are classic stories, though, like the woman who discovered fission:
http://museumvictoria.com.au/scidiscovery/scientists/meitner.asp

I will try to find Smolin's book, and will also read more about Alfven. I read a few articles where it looked like he sort of went a bit eccentric after the Nobel, as some do...sorry, it has to be said. So I need to get both sides.

The problem for me is that I have no great expertise in this particular area. I read a thread about the "electric sun" (which I felt was bogus), and became convinced that this was pretty much the same sort of stuff. Not so sure now.

I'll hop back into the fray when I know more. I still feel that the business about "funding" and sacred cows is pretty much smoke and mirrors though.

Not to say that there isn't fierce competition though, for sure.

 

[sol invictus]

I will try to find Smolin's book, and will also read more about Alfven.

The fact that BAC likes Smolin should probably warn you off... he (Smolin) has a personal and scientific ax to grind. He wants more funding, students, and resources devoted to his particular brand of quantum gravity research. So take anything he says or writes about other areas of physics with lots of salt.

By the way, it looks like BeAChooser is a 9/11 truther - which fits rather perfectly with his physics obsessions. It's also probable that he has a sockpuppet here.

See these posts and see for yourself:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3374476&postcount=1

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3278303&postcount=59

And apparently this wouldn't be the first time he's used sockpuppets:

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=52466&Disp=15&Trace=on

 

[Ziggurat]

Name some products we use in our daily lives or even in the lives of just a few that stem from some fundamental theory developed in the last 30 years or so. Can you do it, Ziggurat?

Define what counts as "fundamental" for a theory, and then explain why that's the relevant metric, and maybe I'll think about it. Until then, I have no interest in playing that game with you.

Well according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics , the theory underlying condensed matter physics is quantum mechanics ... which was developed back in the late 1920s and 30s.

So? How long between Newton and the advent of quantum mechanics and special relativity? Are you claiming that physics was static in the intervening interval? Of course it wasn't. And yet, the underlying theory until QM and SR was all Newtonian.

In any case, I don't mean to lead this thread astray ... just point out that going down the wrong road in particle physics, string theory and astrophysics could have a very detrimental effect on progress in other areas ...

You haven't demonstrated any dependence of progress in technologically relevant fields of physics on the areas of physics you have problems with. You are inventing reasons to get upset, just like you're inventing reasons to believe in nonsense.

If dark matter doesn't exist around galaxies, we've wasted at the very least a lot of resources and scientists lives looking for it.

We always pursue far more false leads than successes, because there are always more possible wrong answers than right answers. So what?

 

[BeAChooser]

detectors like Soudan, SNO, UNO, and Minos are dedicated to understanding the mass and flavor structure of three known neutrinos

You don't think neutrinos have anything to do with dark matter or bolstering the mainstream's theory that the sun is fusion powered? And why do the websites of those programs mention dark matter in rationalizing their existence if they have nothing to do with dark matter?

Neutrinos were once a dark matter candidate

Which perhaps explains why so much money was spend building and running those experiments. Some in the mainstream once thought neutrinos might take care of all the missing matter problem. No wonder they were so eager to study a particle that otherwise has absolutely no effect on us.

If you're going to lump all neutrino research into "dark matter", you'd better lump all brown-dwarf astronomy in there, too.

Brown dwarfs (that haven't been already observed) do qualify as dark matter, but that doesn't begin to solve your missing matter problem either.

IceCUBE is looking for the neutrino component of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. UHEs are not dark matter.

No, but http://space.newscientist.com/artic...er-may-emit-ultrahigh-energy-cosmic-rays.html "Dark matter may emit ultra-high energy cosmic rays", which again might be the real reason money is going into studying them.

Indeed, studying UHEs is a good way of studying energetic astrophysical plasmas---I thought you wanted more plasma research?

Don't missunderstand me. I'm not advocating that we stop building accelerators, telescopes or other measuring devices. But let's not go chasing gnomes just to prop up a theory if you folks aren't willing to tell us in peer reviewed articles why other peer reviewed articles that indicate some of your gnomes don't exist are wrong.

LSST is looking for (a) supernovae, (b) near-Earth asteroids, and (c) "weak lensing" of distant galaxies.

It's own website calls it a "dark matter telescope". Now do you suppose that if dark matter isn't what's creating that lensing effect, they just might misinterpret what they are seeing? Afterall, anything else might have interacted with the light in other ways.

there are dozens of small dark-matter experiments, ranging from CDMS to DEAP/CLEAN to XENON. Please feel free to post the budget of these experiments after (a) you've learned the difference between a dark matter experiment and everything else, and (b) you've learned the difference between the US, Canada, and Europe.

I see no difference between money spent in other countries by Big Bang supporting physicists and money spent here. It's still resources that humanity is devoting to something that might be better devoted to something else. It's still time that scientists, American or otherwise, devote to one thing rather than something else. And just for your information, I got that list of experiments off a presentation done by someone in the mainstream on "dark matter experiments", past and present.

And yes, most of them are probably in the millions of dollar price range but that's far more than is being spent on research in all of the alternatives to your gnomes combined.

P.S. ... don't forget the LHC. One of the five primary reasons given (http://public.web.cern.ch/PUBLIC/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html ) for building this $8 billion dollar machine is to unveil the secret of dark matter. Two of the others are to find the Higgs boson which is essential if the standard model is to work as theorized, and create Big Bang - like conditions.

As for your lauded PIC codes, you keep saying they "put in the known laws of electromagnetism". This is ridiculous

Why don't you contact Anthony Peratt and tell him that. I'd be curious how he responds.

 

[BeAChooser]

I'll hop back into the fray when I know more.

Enjoyed discussing this with you. When you feel ready, we can chat again.

 

[BeAChooser]

By the way, it looks like BeAChooser is a 9/11 truther - which fits rather perfectly with his physics obsessions. It's also probable that he has a sockpuppet here.

Sol, I thought you were going to ignore me. But you can't help yourself, can you.

And you are an absolute liar. Anyone who checks any of my many posts on 9/11 topics here at JREF or elsewhere will see that I am in no way a 9/11 truther or in any way supportive of their claims. And you'd better be prepared to back up your claim that I'm that other poster whose posts you linked here at JREF because if you can't, I'm going to report you to the moderators and see if your false assertion lies within the rules of JREF. Looks like you can't argue the facts so you're going to resort to low-brow tactics.

 

[robinson]

Don't worry too much about it BAC. I see morons here do that stuff all the time. Reporting it won't do anything. Some morons can insult you with lies like that and get away with it. Just don't resort to the same tactics.

 

[robinson]

Hard as it may be to fathom, telling lies is OK on a skeptics forum! There is no rule against it.

But ignoring the trolls, what about dark energy?

Dark matter is understandable, there are vast amounts of dust, gas and particles out there, that we can't see. But invisible energy? That doesn't effect matter, or dark matter?

That sounds like EM.

 

[sol invictus]

Dark matter is understandable, there are vast amounts of dust, gas and particles out there, that we can't see. But invisible energy? That doesn't effect matter, or dark matter?

It affects both matter and dark matter. That's how we know it's there.

That sounds like EM.

Matter is electrically neutral, and dark matter cannot have a significant net charge (there are extremely good experimental limits on it - it wouldn't be dark if it was charged). That's why EM effects are irrelevant on cosmological scales. Furthermore even in a hypothetical universe where matter/DM were charged, the effects of the resulting fields on the expansion of the universe would not fit what we observe.

Dark energy is something much more peculiar than an EM field. Evidently it exists in vacuum even without sources - unlike EM fields - and so the vacuum itself has an energy per unit volume. It's probably easy to see why that leads to a universe in which the expansion accelerates (which is what's observed). By contrast, the effects of EM fields fall off as the universe expands as the charges and currents that source them are diluted.

 

[robinson]

I'm not sure what thread would lend itself to some of this, but that whole "empty space" thing is interesting. Is it really empty? What is the amount of energy in a given amount of space?

You have gravity, every kind of EM, particles, and dark matter and energy, all within the same area. Is there a formula to calculate this?

 

[sol invictus]

I'm not sure what thread would lend itself to some of this, but that whole "empty space" thing is interesting. Is it really empty? What is the amount of energy in a given amount of space?

According to observations of dark energy, the amount is roughly (the equivalent of) one proton per cubic meter, which is incredibly tiny (remember that the size scale of a proton is about 10^-15 meters, or 10^-45 cubic meters in volume). Even if those observations are somehow wrong, the energy density cannot be significantly larger than that.

You have gravity, every kind of EM, particles, and dark matter and energy, all within the same area. Is there a formula to calculate this?

Yes, there's a formula, and it gives a completely wrong answer. Much, much, much too big. More or less, it says that the energy density of the vacuum should be of order the energy of the most energetic particle divided by the characteristic size of that particle cubed. So if protons were the most energetic particle in the world (they're not), the answer would be off by 10^45. In fact it's off by at least 10^60.

This is called the cosmological constant problem. Some have argued it's the most profound and difficult problem in modern physics, akin to the ultraviolet catastrophe of the early 20th century (which lead to the discovery of quantum mechanics).

 

[Stellafane]

I sometimes wonder whether or not dark matter and dark energy -- indeed, perhaps the Big Bang itself -- are just artificial constructs we've created to try to explain how the universe works, when in fact the reality (if such a thing exists) is simply too complex for our insufficiently evolved minds to grasp. Just as an ant can't be taught calculus no matter how hard you try, humans may not be able to understand how the universe actually operates, because what we observe will always appear too varied and contradictory to yield itself to something as limited as the human brain. To put it bluntly, I wonder if we're simply too stupid to figure it out.

I know that sounds like a self-defeating position. If we're too stupid, why bother at all? But that's not my point. We need to keep trying, if not only for our own peace of mind, but because whatever we do discover may help those who come after us who possess intellects sufficiently superior to build upon our meager foundation of understanding (whether those intellects be evolved humans, superintelligent computers, bio-engineered brains, or something else). And I'm not implying that astrophysists pull such theories out of the air (or from some more personal, darker place). I know they're based on meticulous oberservation, reproducible experimentation, and mathematical models.

Still, I'm uneasy whenever we need to invoke the exotic to explain something. I think one of the greatest leaps in human understanding occurred when Hutton stared at a cliff of exposed strata, and understood it wasn't the result of strange, fantastic processes and events that occured long ago and don't happen anymore. Instead, he realized that this was the handiwork of everyday processes that are occurring now -- slow but inexorable.

That's why I'm concerned when we have to devise things like dark matter and dark energy, entities for which we have no tangible proof, that exist somewhere Out There, untouchable and unobservable except theoretically and indirectly. And not only do we postulate that it exists, but that it comprises most of the known universe. Somehow I'm reminded, however faintly, of the days when people attributed the workings of the universe to "vital forces" or even gods, fantastic invisible causes that are beyond our ability to observe.

Yeah, I know -- the fact that I don't understand something speaks nothing of its merits. And I'm perfectly aware that if current cosmological theories offer a dead end, by necessity we most construct and explore new theories, however bizarre and counterintuitive they may first appear. After all, what else are we supposed to do? So I think of dark matter and dark energy as very useful models, vital for advancing the cause of human understanding. As to whether or not they conform to that elusive concept we call reality -- well, (pardon the pun) that's another matter.