Sorry, I still have problems with it. You have a BB “theory” that doesn’t fit the observed facts. You also have a gravitational model that doesn’t fit the observed facts. You have two choices: either your theory and model are wrong, or there is something unobserved at play. Dark matter satisfies the latter. But it’s just plain bad science to ignore the former. Sure, the existence of dark matter resolves a lot of problems with the current theories, but if the theories are wrong – who cares.
When I take into consideration that the quantity of brown dwarfs in the galactic halos is waaaaay too small to make up the missing matter, gravitational lensing hasn’t shown evidence of anything close to the required quantity of MACHOs, and despite several ongoing multi-year efforts, researchers have failed to find one single trace of evidence of even a single WIMP, I think the theory has to be called into question.
I know it’s a weak analogy and will break down quite easily, but how about this. Let’s say you have a theory that states that mixing a certain amount of element A with a like amount of element B will produce a specified amount of compound C and give off x amount of energy. But when you actually mix those amounts, you get the predicted amount of compound C, but only .2x in energy. As with dark matter, you have two choices – either the theory needs to be re-examined or you can postulate that the “missing” energy is really there, but somehow undetectable. Good science would be to say, “Let’s have a look at the theory” AND, “Let’s do some further examination of our experimental results to see if we can find that missing energy.” It’s bad science to say, “Well, we got the predicted amount of C, so our theory must be correct; the missing energy must be there in some unobservable form.”
Like I said before, the theory might be absolutely correct, but at this point, I would hardly say that it meets your posted definition of a “theory”. Any theory of cosmological origin, gravitation, and what have you which requires that we assume the existence of anywhere from 80 to 99+ percent of the matter required to make it function, doesn’t seem like it meets the requirements of a good theory. At least to me (A little disclaimer that makes what I said completely unassailable ).
Here’s a quote from you. Parenthetical remarks are mine.
If you do not have observational data to support your hypothesis, if your assertion is based on belief (like maybe belief in dark matter) or that the argument sounds right or is just logical (or makes you model work), then you are not doing science.
Before I start let me say thanks to you Z-Bube for chiming in here. I do love discussing this stuff, even if in the end we just have to agree to disagree.
"You have a BB “theory” that doesn’t fit the observed facts. You also have a gravitational model that doesn’t fit the observed facts."
Maybe we ought to lay it all on the table. What observed facts are inconsistent with BB and gravity theory? I don't see any. What we have are observations that point toward a type of matter that does not interact with light but does gravitationally. This is not unheard of, there are several known particles that act the same way. It is just the AMOUNT of "dark matter" that is puzzling.
Here's the rub, The Big Bang theory is at its core about the expansion of the universe. The discovery of dark matter does not in any way affect the basic fact that the unverse is expanding. The Law of gravity describes the force of interaction between massive objects (Newtonian) or the warping of space time due to mass (Gen Rel). The discovery of dark matter does not alter those models. You can come up with a new model that explains the galactic rotation curves using a new gravitational model that is slightly different from the current one, but all that involves is changing one coefficient in the equation. And if you do that change, the new law makes predictions about other behaviors that are contradictory to observations. And also if you do change gravity, it still does not affect BB. So to put it succinctly, the approach that creates by far the LEAST amount of difficulty is to adopt the notion that there is vast quantities of material that does not interact with light. I know it is strange and unsatisfying, but that is just the way it is ... right now.
"But it’s just plain bad science to ignore the former. Sure, the existence of dark matter resolves a lot of problems with the current theories, but if the theories are wrong – who cares."
I think you may overstate a bit that people are ignoring the problems in the BB model. If you read the literature (and I don't mean Scientific American or Sky and Telescope, the real stuff) you will see that many people are putting forth challenges to the BB model, somewhat in the hope that history will remember them as the one that defeated BB. I myself have gone through phases where I felt like the BB model was in serious trouble (the age paradox was a big one for me, we had stars older than the universe). Ironically, the discovery of dark energy (which is even more unsatisfying than dark matter IMO) solved that problem very neatly. So while I have had my reservations from time to time, it seems like the BB model has weathered the storm of new data VERY well and come out looking fairly robust ... for now.
"When I take into consideration that the quantity of brown dwarfs in the galactic halos is waaaaay too small to make up the missing matter, gravitational lensing hasn’t shown evidence of anything close to the required quantity of MACHOs"
This is true, but those studying primordial nucleosynthesis already predicted that dark matter would not be composed primarily by MACHOS, but instead by WIMPS. If you look the isotopic abundances of early matter, it clearly predicts that the vast majority of dark matter must be in the form of WIMPS. So the lack of vast numbers of MACHOs is actually not a surprising result, and confirms earlier suspicions.
"and despite several ongoing multi-year efforts, researchers have failed to find one single trace of evidence of even a single WIMP, I think the theory has to be called into question."
I think we have to be careful about the "well we haven't found it yet so it must not be there" approach. I have spoken personally with many of the people involved in WIMP-finding endeavors, and all of them tell me that there methodology was a long-shot to begin with. We are simply not yet there technologically to really have the proper tools to discern the formation (or possibly lack of formation) of those particles.
Again, let me state that I think the theory is continually being called into question. Let me ask you where you got your information about the problems with the BB model? Unless it was some creation-science motivated site, you probably got it from sites that are actively proposing alternative models. People are challenging the model, much as you are here.
Let me just say for the record, if new evidence came up tomorrow that showed the BB model could not be correct, I would lose no sleep dropping it completely.
"you can postulate that the “missing” energy is really there, but somehow undetectable"
You are mixing apples and oranges. It is not that there is some light out there we cannot detect. There is matter out there that we do detect, it just doesn't interact with light in the same way that "normal" matter does. Dark matter IS detected gravitationally. Light is not the only tool at our disposal for measuring the properties of the universe.
"Good science would be to say, “Let’s have a look at the theory” AND, “Let’s do some further examination of our experimental results to see if we can find that missing energy.”"
You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. And if you again search the literature, you will find that very thing has been done, repeatedly. People have questioned the BB and Gravity models, and repeatedly re-measured their results and sought new ways to look at the problem.
"It’s bad science to say, “Well, we got the predicted amount of C, so our theory must be correct; the missing energy must be there in some unobservable form.”"
No, that is only bad science if you dogmatically follow that approach without considering alternatives. I see (again in the literature) that scientist did consider alternatives, and came to the conclusion that the BB model could be altered (actually expanded, no pun intended) to include dark matter (and now dark energy).
"I would hardly say that it meets your posted definition of a “theory”."
I actually agree with you there. Because we are still lacking hands-on laboratory verification of many of the key postulates of BB model, it really isn't quite a theory yet, more of a REALLY good hypothesis. It is not up to the level of gravity or biological evolution or other well known theories. But it does do a remarkable job at explaining many observations, has weathered several storms, and has incorporated new data very well.
Thanks again Z-Bube!!!!!
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
OK Chrom, after reading this last post I have to say that we essentially agree. This whole thing got started when you said that BB was an accepted theory some time after you defined “theory”. I jumped in and said that BB was a bad “theory”: not a bad theory, but a bad “theory”. Then I pointed out a few of the more basic problems with it.
As for the mixing of apples and oranges, I again agree completely. That’s why I said up front that it was a weak analogy and would quickly break down. I just wanted to illustrate that it's bad science to stick to a hypothesis when the observed data doesn’t completely support it without postulating the existence of something not in evidence. It was meant to be a simplistic illustration – nothing more.
It seems that we’re really in complete agreement on everything but saying that BB is a “theory”.
Idiotic nincompoops. I am having a Amber Bock, What are you drinking?
Corri, Thanks for that reply, I want to break down our convo later. You explained exactly what I have been saying for a while about not trying ot logical an emotional outburst. I demonstrated some ways to play with a womans silly sh!t when she does have one. Takes practice and awareness though.
Not manic anymore, I am just flat out running to try to keep up with all my work right now. No time to read or post right now. untill right now, that is.
Chrissy,
Whats up skinny minny? You said you have control issues? NO. Say it isnt so!!
I am flabbergasted at this revelation.
Seriously, whats up, and if we discuss it know that its going to be previewed or postscripted by a nutrition lesson.
Seeing my weight at 126 instead of the 118-120 I have stayed at for 8-10 years most have triggered something in me. All I could think was my gosh I only weighed 132-136 when I was pregnant. Anywhoooo not gonna let it become a big deal and get out of hand. (would not mind the extra weight had it landed in the right spots
There is a reason it is not landing in the right spots. There is going to be a dogpile of SSM members whaping you up side the head. This activity will mess up your brain chemistry, your body chemsitry. It will make you visually unattractive sooner not later.
