Five Brilliant Ideas For New Physics That Need To Die, Already

[swansont]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Observations of normal matter are far from precise, and much of he accuracy is questionable.

That's one reason we have error bars. We quantify these things. 

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think we know that it has to be dark matter or modifications to gravity theory since the discrepancies are so high. As we get more and better data some genius may recognize a pattern amidst the noise and then plausibly come up with a modified gravity approach, with or without dark or extra-normal matter...or maybe someone figures out what dark matter is and modified gravity is not required.

Yes, the discrepancies are large. Which conflicts with the notion that the problem is that the data are noisy, unless the noise is at least on par with the discrepancy. Is it?

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I understand the idea...not working, give it up already...I think that time might have come for many or most, but to suggest that physics as a whole should give up on it completely is IMO premature.

"We haven't succeeded yet" was true of every concept at one point in time, including ones that lead to current theories.

It's been a long time, and nobody is converging on a solution.

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/the-death-of-dark-matters-1-competitor-98edff3a066f

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/11/01/why-are-dark-matter-and-modified-gravity-in-such-conflict/#2fddf35e6112

The data shown don't look particularly noisy.

[Dubbelosix]

On 06/10/2017 at 4:58 PM, swansont said:

Good summary of five popular physics hypotheses that just haven't panned out

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/10/06/five-brilliant-ideas-for-new-physics-that-need-to-die-already/#13d3f59357b7

 

Plus the kicker at the end

 

 

My friend Matti just wrote recently how the multiverse was one of those obvious wrong idea's concerning the nature of reality - I agreed. I knew from early on, the idea of parallel universes was actually crazy, but what surprises me is how many great scientists are still duped by this.... theory which fell apart almost as soon as it was developed, (according to Matti) but I agree with this statement, since Hoyle showed the nonsense it was comprised of, from a simple analogy of flipping a coin 100 times, you would create [math]10^{30}[/math] alternative universe in the process - no wonder Addams said in the beginning, the big bang happened, and this made many people angry. He wasn't kidding... flip it a few more times and you will create more universes than there are particles in the observable universe, (which is actually more than now) [math]3 \times 10^{80}[/math]. The factor of three arises from the three spatial dimensions (or degree's of freedom of the number). 

On 06/10/2017 at 5:09 PM, Sensei said:

Majority of crackpots that we have seen here were not educated in quantum physics at all..

Often even saying "wow" after the first time in their life seeing videos showing Cloud Chamber, that I gave, presenting result of radioactive decay, result of unstable quantum particle decay, on their own eyes..

 

Well at least you are partially correct. I am by no means Einstein and even by those standards, I am still a drop-out. But, I get the impression there are smart people here who do know physics and are willing to learn and give information themselves, by which we learn in the process. Mordred is a good example, I have learned, quite a bit since studying papers that have been suggested. 

 

But being educated in physics, still is not a reason to suffer ill-judged wisdom, and seeing scientists do it, is a ... metaphorical, ethical-killing crime.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

since Hoyle showed the nonsense it was comprised of, from a simple analogy of flipping a coin 100 times, you would create 1030 alternative universe in the process

An argument from incredulity is not very compelling, whoever it comes from.

Also, you may be mixing up the multiverse hypothesis (or hypotheses) with the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory (which is, of course, indistinguishable from the Copenhagen interpretation or indeed any other).

[Dubbelosix]

An argument from logical sentiment wins over most action theories. 

There is no reason in nature to think the universe obeys those chaotic creation statistics in an evolution, self-contained universe. It's nonsense. 

[Strange]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

An argument from logical sentiment wins over most action theories. 

What does "logical sentiment" mean? Are you using the word logic in the popular sense of "it makes sense to me"? In which case it has pretty much zero value.

And what is an "action theory"?

[Dubbelosix]

Logical means, applying thoughts and reasoning, in a consistent way with how we understand nature. What is our best guess?

 

1). Inflation appears to be being challenged by the best scientists in the field (only because) it leads to unfalsifiable theories, like eternal inflation which involves a concept of multiverses.

2) Nature appears to favour the ground state when it can, in relativity, this transposes to systems taking the most efficient paths through spacetime, which may be a curve in space. Ultimately, reality tends to follow the least action principle. 

 

What does this say about logical consistency concerning the theory of parallel universes, and the possibilities-into-realities that Hoyle was so troubled about?

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

Logical means, applying thoughts and reasoning, in a consistent way with how we understand nature. What is our best guess?

OK. So not logic as it is used in philosophy, mathematics or science.

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

What does this say about logical consistency concerning the theory of parallel universes, and the possibilities-into-realities that Hoyle was so troubled about?

Not much.

[Dubbelosix]

It tells most of us interested in falsifiable theories, quite a lot.

[J.C.MacSwell]

23 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

Yes, the discrepancies are large. Which conflicts with the notion that the problem is that the data are noisy, unless the noise is at least on par with the discrepancy. Is it?

 

Not at all required. If the noise was on par with the discrepancy neither dark matter or modified gravity would be needed.

[Strange]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not at all required. If the noise was on par with the discrepancy neither dark matter or modified gravity would be needed.

But it isn't. The difference between calculated mass distribution and the observed mass is enormous: a factor of 5. The error bounds will be a few percent, at most, fractions of a parent in some cases.

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

But it isn't. The difference between calculated mass distribution and the observed mass is enormous: a factor of 5. The error bounds will be a few percent, at most, fractions of a parent in some cases.

For the bold:

Right. So it seems something is needed.

For the rest. What makes you even suspect this might be true?

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

For the rest. What makes you even suspect this might be true?

Just a guess from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve (see the error bars on the graph)

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just a guess from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve (see the error bars on the graph)

From Wiki on the M33 galaxy that rotation curve refers to (it's part of the local group):

The disk of Triangulum has an estimated mass of (3–6) × 109 solar masses, while the gas component is about 3.2 × 109 solar masses. Thus the combined mass of all baryonic matter in the galaxy may be 1010 solar masses. The contribution of the dark matter component out to a radius of 55×103 ly (17 kpc) is equivalent to about 5 × 1010 solar masses.

Estimates of the distance to the Triangulum galaxy range from 2,380×103 to 3,070×103 ly (730 to 940 kpc) (or 2.38 to 3.07 Mly), with most estimates since the year 2000 lying in the middle portion of this range,[3

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Not at all required. If the noise was on par with the discrepancy neither dark matter or modified gravity would be needed.

But then you can distinguish between the two. One is excluded if the proposed solution is significantly outside the error bars. It doesn't match the data.

[Dubbelosix]

• The issue is more complicated now. We have found at least half the required dark matter problem. I've seen this as an additional problem to dark matter, even if one considers the extra amount will not account for acceleration curves. If you take dark matter as we are supposed to understand it then add another half of its total factor, we have a silly picture of reality. I liken the idea of dark matter to the spawn of the discrepancies that seem inherent in the fundamental equations - the Friedmann equation is a good example, in which the flat space density is many magnitudes of order out of satisfying a flat spacetime.

1) either the universe as we understand it is not truly flat

2) either our theory about the mathematics is wrong

3) Or all the above

 

Any other suggestions, because even as a theory, dark matter doesn't even seem consistent? It seems like a superfluous addition to an otherwise, strange phenomenon with sources that can be sought in other, more local dynamics. 

I am possibly more inclined to believe option one is the most likely. This is what Susskind (seems) to believe - he thinks over time, we will gradually measure a curve. But if we take the Friedmann equation seriously, the curve should be more significant, so it is possibly a combination of understanding of reality and the mathematics we describe it, at least, the mathematical model. 

[Strange]

How do the Friedmann equations relate to dark matter?

9 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Any other suggestions, because even as a theory, dark matter doesn't even seem consistent? It seems like a superfluous addition to an otherwise, strange phenomenon with sources that can be sought in other, more local dynamics. 

Doesn't seem consistent with what? We already know of particles which do not interact via the electromagnetic force. Why would it be strange or inconsistent if there were others? There several pre-existing hypotheses that could account for dark matter.

[Dubbelosix]

The dark matter is added into the effective density parameter as a correction, but it is still not of same magnitude as actual density of flat spacetime. 

 

 

(It)

 

...doesn't seem consistent with reality. Dark matter is an excessive component especially in recent times and recent experimental results. Things are just not adding up, I am sorry if you don't like my opinion or rate it very much. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

But then you can distinguish between the two. One is excluded if the proposed solution is significantly outside the error bars. It doesn't match the data.

The error bars are based on a number of assumptions, none of which are (of course) at a confidence level of 100%. I understand you have to base these things on something, but this is not taken into account in the error bars. Assuming they are the most reasonable set of assumptions we have to work with it might also be reasonable to exclude proposed solutions that don't fit...but it is a much further stretch to exclude modified gravity entirely as a potential solution.

 

[Dubbelosix]

The error bars attempt to be the reasonable solution. No one doubts they exist, its the models we use and the methods we calculate them within a final combination of how we understand them, as the final wedding cake. 

Science is fucking complicated, mind my french

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The error bars are based on a number of assumptions, none of which are (of course) at a confidence level of 100%. I understand you have to base these things on something, but this is not taken into account in the error bars. Assuming they are the most reasonable set of assumptions we have to work with it might also be reasonable to exclude proposed solutions that don't fit...but it is a much further stretch to exclude modified gravity entirely as a potential solution.

Error bars are often based on statistics of the data that has been gathered, so I don't understand your comment.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Error bars are often based on statistics of the data that has been gathered, so I don't understand your comment.

Using the galaxy rotation curves for M33 as an example:

 

How do you think you can get such small error bars for velocities and positions on a galaxy where you are not even sure if it is 2,380,000 ly  or 3,070,000 ly away? You base it on assumptions (pick somewhere in the middle that you believe most likely correct?) and then account only for further plausible errors inherent in your observations based on an estimate of what those further errors might be.

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by J.C.MacSwell

[Dubbelosix]

Nothing in science is certain. A good scientist always measures things by error. Nothing in reality is, scientifically-speaking within the conducts of the scientific methodology, 100% certain. 

The only thing that follows apparent deterministic laws, are those which follow classical laws. That should not be taken to mean, that the universe should be or has to be intrinsically indeterministic at the fundamental level. I don't believe it is. 

[swansont]

12 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Using the galaxy rotation curves for M33 as an example:

 

How do you think you can get such small error bars for velocities and positions on a galaxy where you are not even sure if it is 2,380,000 ly  or 3,070,000 ly away? You base it on assumptions (pick somewhere in the middle that you believe most likely correct?) and then account only for further plausible errors inherent in your observations based on an estimate of what those further errors might be.

 

Does velocity measurement depend on distance?

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Does velocity measurement depend on distance?

The size, brightness, and most particularly distances from the galaxy centres are directly related to the distance away and therefore the rotation curves. M33 is in the Local Group (where one would expect some of the more accurate estimates) Velocity measurements from redshift effects based on distance (Hubble effects) would become significant much further away. 

 

[MigL]

It seems somewhat disingenuous for the article to suggest that the concept of supersymmetry should be abandoned, primarily because SS particles haven't been found yet; But, alternatives to Dark Matter should be discarded even though DM hasn't been found yet.

Keep all options open.
( until overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise )