Study finds ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ may not exist

a reply to: wildespace

I have zero ability to prove this one way or another.

However, it always seemed to me DE/DM was contrived. Just names to explain why this or that equation didn't work out as hoped.

It seems science always looking for the oposit of what they find.
We never will find every theoretical idea we come up to in a lifetime.

It might live within dimensional regions of space someday we'll know ,but then we have other things to worry about.

a reply to: wildespace

Personally, I've never been a fan of the so-called "dark matter", feeling that it's simply a placeholder concept for something we don't yet understand.

So called "Dark Energy" is exactly that - a placeholder name for a concept that we don't yet understand.

Dark Matter on the other hand has been indirectly observed through its lensing effect on light. Just as our Sun's mass 'bends' the light coming from stars (and other objects) 'behind' it, and the mass of galaxies 'bend' the light from other galaxies behind them, so too does Dark Matter bend the light of objects behind it. This lensing effect from Dark Matter has been absolutely confirmed. The term was coined over a hundred years ago to describe the difference between the amount of 'regular' (baryonic matter) mass in the universe that we could 'see' - like planets, stars, galaxies, nebulas, dust, etc - and the amount that was needed to account for the spin rate of the Milky Way. Lord Kelvin computed the mass required and concluded that a majority of the mass in the galaxy was invisible in 1884. In 1904 Henri Poincare coined the term 'Dark Matter'.

Galaxy clusters prove dark matter’s existence:You don’t have to detect a particle to know that dark matter is real.

The name 'Dark Energy' was coined after 'Dark Matter' due to denote whatever the heck it is that is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. We don't know that it is dark, and we don't know that it is energy. We only know that the expansion of the universe is accelerating and we need a term to focus on when we are hypothesizing about what the cause is. The term is 'Dark' because as in Dark Matter, we can't 'see' it, and 'Energy' because in our everyday experience what causes acceleration is energy.

Maybe some day we'll figure out it is really 'Bright Suction', but yeah, 'Dark Energy' is a placeholder concept and there is no secret about it.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: wildespace

scientists created the idea of dark matter in order to explain for what they couldn't find or detect, now they are saying, we don't need dark matter to exist anymore because we now understand a little better what we are observing, and what we're seeing are just the effects of motion and time..

Not quite. If I read it correctly, Maeder is saying that he has a possible new approach which may not need dark matter or dark energy.

On the other hand, he may just be describing the mathematics of how dark matter and dark energy work. Now we know that dark matter actually exists because of its lensing and other effects so there is definately something there that Maeder has to account for in his model. Notice that the paper only claims to 'satisfy several major cosmological tests' and that it seems to only work for 'low density' systems. There is still a long way to go before it can be accepted as theory.

But we don't have any idea what dark energy is and if he has nailed it then he should start practicing his Nobel acceptance speech. Maybe, just maybe, he has figured it out, and that is great. Not 'needing' the term Dark Energy to describe the cause of the expansion acceleration is really no big deal - the term is just a place holder term so we can talk about it and think about what it might be, and not needing any new particles would be a terrific result.

If he does have the answer, then great, we'll start calling it the "Andre Maeder effect" and he'll probably be in line for a Nobel.

Looking forward to more developments.

Edit: and look at ChaoticOrder's post on the previous page: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse
Racists.

They are going to have to change "Black lives matter" to "black matter lives" now.

All matter..matters!

a reply to: yorkshirelad

I'm going to do some reading a bit later before responding to your knowledgeable reply.

beginning with...

Could it be ideas like dark matter/dark energy are made up as an excuse for CERN and others to run these crazy experiments and spend millions of dollars on their colliders? Colliders that are being used for "other" purposes?

a reply to: jjkenobi

Simply put... No

More complex
CERN is a facility that primarily performs high energy particle physics research among other things. It is a surface and shallow facility and such makes it useless for Dark Matter detection. Direct Dark matter searches need to go deep underground where they are shielded from the enormous amount of cosmic rays that bombard us every moment of every day.
CERN can have the possibility of creating Dark Matter in so called beam stop experiments, but has thus far not performed any such experiment as a primary physics goal.

Cost? Well, HEP is expensive, but it is also funded internationally, They don't have a bottomless wallet, the money to build the LHC was 20billion... donated by over 50 countries, over 15 years. Sooooo what is that? The American GDP is 19.3 Trillion dollars... Military spending is about 500Billion...

So yeah? id personally call the LHC practically free, oh yeah, and most of it was paid for by Europe... NOT the US. Its running costs are about 800million a year... oh yeah, also paid for primarily by the EU. So don't worry yourself about all those precious dollars.

Other purposes? so please elaborate rather than randomly throw out unfounded conspiracy? There are more accelerators than at the LHC you know...So please tell us, what "Other" Purposes?

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Could it be ideas like dark matter/dark energy are made up as an excuse for CERN and others to run these crazy experiments and spend millions of dollars on their colliders? Colliders that are being used for "other" purposes?

Like military? beams, penetrators, disruptors, yes i concur.

If gravity and mass exist, dark matter has to exist

a reply to: yorkshirelad

Not going into quantum physics "foam".

I do believe in ether of space, if thats what you mean. Currently unquantifiable.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: wildespace
Dark Matter on the other hand has been indirectly observed through its lensing effect on light.

Rather, what's been observed is the effect of gravity on spacetime. The actual source of that gravity remains unknown. It could be some misterious dark matter, it could be black holes, or it could indeed be a previously unaccounted-for way gravity works.

a reply to: wildespace

What has been observed through lensing is that galaxies exhibit a disperse gravitational field that spreads out far further than luminous matter. The none luminous gas out there simply isn't enough. The rotation curves of spiral galaxies give a good indication to the mass distribution, and simple flat disks are not enough. The model that seems to fit quite simply and well is that of a spherioid halo of material.

What you are talking about there is MACHOs, or massive, compact, halo, objects which can and do account for some of the mass... though again, not enough.

You might say "Oh but how do we know! we cant see blackholes" well lets just say that if you had a halo composed of enough material in blackholes... it would be deathly obvious as these blackholes will be in disk crossing orbits. The disk would be highly disrupted and there would be loads of x-ray sources coming from dwarf galaxies as they interact with the distribution of black holes. So yes we can say with some good confidence that it isn't black-holes either.

The best image what is being described is the bullet cluster... if you take the x-ray hot gas image which tells you where most of the luminous matter is that is not stars, and over lay it on an optical image, you see that in this interacting cluster, the gas trails behind the optical counter parts, in a double shock front. The gas and the stars clearly separated as the clusters interact.
If you then perform a lensing map and look at how light from background objects are distorted, you find that the majority of the mass around the clusters are clearly separated from the optical centre of mass of the clusters, which shows that there is some matter there that is not interacting with the gas, the stars, or itself in any way other than gravitationally.

So... yes the evidence for some unknown matter is quite compelling, more compelling than most people who write off the subject in 5 lines or less seem to realize.