• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Fermi and dark matter

Michael Mozina said:
Put yourself in my shoes for a second Ed. *If* DM had already been shown to exist (say via LHC or some other collider experiment), *and* it had also been shown to annihilate and emit gamma rays, *then* I really would have nothing to complain about. Since steps A) and B) were never demonstrated, C) looks like pure "made up" speculation from where I sit. What empirical evidence actually supports the claim that DM emits *ANYTHING* let alone gamma rays? The whole thing is one big fallacy of affirming the consequent.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/afthecon.html

The example they use is:

If it's raining then the streets are wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore, it's raining.

In this case the circular feedback loop goes:

If DM exists in nature and it annihilates, it will produce gamma rays.
There are gamma rays in space.
Therefore DM annihilates and emits gamma rays.
Click to expand...

Hate to burst your philosophical bubble, but affirming the consequent is key to how science is conducted. Your error is assuming deduction rather than induction. Science is inductive.

Here is a correction to demonstrate the scientific inquiry:

  • If DM exists in nature and it annihilates, we should see gamma rays from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
  • There are gamma rays coming from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
  • Therefore, the hypothesis is supported (until contradicted by sufficent replications)


Here is the purpose of such a process: refutation (denying the consequent)

  • If DM exists in nature and it annihilates, we should see gamma rays from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
  • Gamma rays coming from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates is NOT OBSERVED.
  • Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected (until contradicted by sufficent replications)

ie: it is untrue that all of science is a logical fallacy
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Einstein had no control mechanism for his tests of GR either.
Click to expand...

Gravity can easily be shown to exist in nature in any ordinary "experiment" with an ordinary control mechanism. The claim of existence of exotic forms of DM are pure speculation. Whereas some parts of Einstein's explanation of "gravity" may not have been easily verified on Earth, the existence of gravity was never in doubt.
 
Ziggurat said:
Particle annihilation shows up in laboratories. Curved space does not.
Click to expand...

DM doesn't show up in a lab. Period. Annihilation of normal forms of matter was never in doubt. Curved space does show up on Earth. Just trying jumping off the planet one time. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Gravity can easily be shown to exist in nature in any ordinary "experiment" with an ordinary control mechanism. The claim of existence of exotic forms of DM are pure speculation. Whereas some parts of Einstein's explanation of "gravity" may not have been easily verified on Earth, the existence of gravity was never in doubt.
Click to expand...

So?

Different hypotheses have different predictions. The nature of the prediction dictates how it is verified or disconfirmed.
 
Ziggurat said:
edd, perhaps you have not met Michael Mozina before. I think you should know a few things about him before you delve in too deeply. He's the owner of this web page:
http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/
Among other unconventional beliefs, he believes that the sun has a solid shell surface, and this web page advocates for this idea. Aside from the obvious mechanical instability of such a system, it also contradicts thermodynamics. But Michael refuses to believe what is plain for everyone else to see.

Now my point here isn't actually to discuss the faults of Michael's ideas, because that's been done at length in other threads. We don't need to go over them here. But before you waste too much time trying to convince Michael about rather basic science issues, you should be aware of how futile the task is likely to be.
Click to expand...

I think what Zig is attempting to say can be summed up in one word: Troll.
 
Michael Mozina said:
DM doesn't show up in a lab. Period. Annihilation of normal forms of matter was never in doubt. Curved space does show up on Earth. Just trying jumping off the planet one time. :)
Click to expand...

Mmmm... not necessarily. There are currently active searches in a variety of laboratories for DM. None have been successful yet, but then they haven't been looking too long either - just a few years. Recall that it took almost 40 years to detect neutrinos after they were predicted theoretically.

Because the observed astronomical evidence is so suggestive, I'm willing to reserve judgment on this particular point for some time. We'll see.
 
blutoski said:
Hate to burst your philosophical bubble, but affirming the consequent is key to how science is conducted. Your error is assuming deduction rather than induction. Science is inductive.
Click to expand...

In all my years of posting on websites, nobody has ever tried to claim that science was dependent upon a logical fallacy. That's a first. :)

Here is a correction to demonstrate the scientific inquiry:

[*] If DM exists in nature
Click to expand...

Then we should be able to demonstrate that claim in an empirical test with real control mechanisms. That was never done.

and it annihilates,
Click to expand...

This is actually a SECOND assumption about the nature of a hypothetical entity. Since there is no evidence that exotic forms of matter exist, there's also no evidence that it annihilates. Both of these claims are "assumptions."

we should see gamma rays from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
Click to expand...

But where would that be? The fact that we can't identify all the mass in a galaxy is not evidence that new and exotic forms of matter are responsible for our failure. Most of the "missing mass" studies would suggest that the "missing mass" is mostly located on the outside edge of a galaxy rather than the core.

In order to know what is "excessive" in terms of rates, you would need to show what is "normal" without the presence of DM. How did you intend to do that?

[*] There are gamma rays coming from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
Click to expand...

Cause is still "undetermined". There could be any number of other valid scientific reasons why gamma rays come from these areas.

[*] Therefore, the hypothesis is supported (until contradicted by sufficent replications)
Click to expand...

The problem is you never demonstrated exotic forms of matter exist, that they emit gamma rays, that it "collect" anywhere, nor show us what is "normal" without the presence of DM.

Here is the purpose of such a process: refutation (denying the consequent)

[*] If DM exists in nature and it annihilates, we should see gamma rays from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates.
[*] Gamma rays coming from the direction where DM is suspected in excess of background rates is NOT OBSERVED.
[*] Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected (until contradicted by sufficent replications)
Click to expand...

The only thing that technically falsifies is the idea that DM emits visible gamma rays. That does not falsify the idea of "dark matter". It doesn't falsify the possibility that DM annihilates and emits gamma rays for that matter. It wouldn't falsify anything other than the single belief that we should "see" gamma rays from DM annihilation. That's not a real falsification mechanism for either the claim of exotic manner or the claim that these particles annihilate each other, so what have you actually falsified? The only thing you might falsify that way is the belief we should be able to "observe" them. The annihilation could occur inside of suns for instance and never be seen.

ie: it is untrue that all of science is a logical fallacy
Click to expand...

FYI I didn't claim "all of science" is based upon a logical fallacy, I said *THIS* claim is based on a logical fallacy. Big difference.
 
Last edited:
blutoski said:
So?

Different hypotheses have different predictions. The nature of the prediction dictates how it is verified or disconfirmed.
Click to expand...

Please read my last response to your previous post and tell me how that particular "test" can be used to falsify either the claim of the existence of DM or the annihilation claim?
 
MattusMaximus said:
Are neutrinos a leading candidate for DM? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Not in this case.. Neutrinos don't annihilate and release gamma rays. Neutrinos also enjoy empirical support so I'll be happy to let you claim that "missing mass" is related to neutrinos. I simply won't let you claim that neutrinos generate gamma rays without additional support.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Not in this case.. Neutrinos don't annihilate and release gamma rays. Neutrinos also enjoy empirical support so I'll be happy to let you claim that "missing mass" is related to neutrinos. I simply won't let you claim that neutrinos generate gamma rays without additional support.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I was talking to Zig.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Are neutrinos a leading candidate for DM? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Neutrinos are dark matter, but not all dark matter needs to be neutrinos. There do not appear to be enough neutrinos to account for the observed mass of dark matter, so they likely make up only a small faction of dark matter.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Mmmm... not necessarily. There are currently active searches in a variety of laboratories for DM. None have been successful yet, but then they haven't been looking too long either - just a few years. Recall that it took almost 40 years to detect neutrinos after they were predicted theoretically.
Click to expand...

Whereas we knew and know exactly where neutrinos come from, where does DM come from?

Because the observed astronomical evidence is so suggestive, I'm willing to reserve judgment on this particular point for some time. We'll see.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to "wait and see" what the future holds, but I have no reason to believe that exotic forms of matter exist in the first place, I have no reason to believe it emits gamma rays, and I have no reason to believe it collects near the center of galaxies. It's one thing to "reserve judgment" about the existence of something, but it's quite another thing to "reserve judgment" about the way that theory is already being abused by astronomers. It's impossible to verify or falsify the existence of something based upon a pure observation and no control mechanism. Anything could release gamma rays from a galaxy. What evidence is there that any type of gamma ray *could* be caused by "dark matter"?
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Neutrinos are dark matter, but not all dark matter needs to be neutrinos. There do not appear to be enough neutrinos to account for the observed mass of dark matter, so they likely make up only a small faction of dark matter.
Click to expand...

For the record, I have absolutely no problem with claiming that the "missing mass" might be related to neutrinos. In this case however we are not talking about neutrinos evidently because they cannot and do not release gamma rays when they "annihilate".
 
Ziggurat said:
Neutrinos are dark matter, but not all dark matter needs to be neutrinos. There do not appear to be enough neutrinos to account for the observed mass of dark matter, so they likely make up only a small faction of dark matter.
Click to expand...

Ah, I understand what you're saying now. Got it. Thanks. :)
 
Michael Mozina said:
Whereas we knew and know exactly where neutrinos come from, where does DM come from?

I'm willing to "wait and see" what the future holds, but I have no reason to believe that exotic forms of matter exist in the first place, I have no reason to believe it emits gamma rays, and I have no reason to believe it collects near the center of galaxies. It's one thing to "reserve judgment" about the existence of something, but it's quite another thing to "reserve judgment" about the way that theory is already being abused by astronomers. It's impossible to verify or falsify the existence of something based upon a pure observation and no control mechanism. Anything could release gamma rays from a galaxy. What evidence is there than any gamma ray *could* be caused by "dark matter"?
Click to expand...

You do realize that I'm not interested in talking with you, right?
 
Michael Mozina said:
It's impossible to verify or falsify the existence of something based upon a pure observation and no control mechanism.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Just look up at the sky sometime. The existence of the stars, the planets, the moon, and even the sun are all based upon pure observation. No control mechanism is needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom