Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

LastSprinkles t1_iwwlev0 wrote

Now we have dark light as well?

212

cj_cusack t1_iwwtlxa wrote

It can only be detected by cosmic Bob Marley posters.

110

cinemanja t1_iwx75xb wrote

I’m losing track of all the different things we can’t possibly observe or understand in any way.

38

SithLordAJ t1_iwxaffr wrote

For your notes, here's the concise list of everything we dont understand:

Life, the Universe, and Everything.

35

Senior_Engineer t1_iwxzfgj wrote

I’m not sure we understand nothing either

12

jawshoeaw t1_iwy3w9q wrote

Yeah it turns out nothing is filled up with all sorts of things buzzing around . Including now dark light and virtual particles. Hey , are we getting punked by physicists? It’s getting harder to tell

8

Scared-Conflict-653 t1_iwy1qdz wrote

This might help: we know nothing. I mean we know some things and know we know that we don't know everything but really, we know nothing.

2

Nuclearfuzzbomber t1_iwy6s7v wrote

There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don't know.

2

GabiNaali t1_iwxicoq wrote

Light and darkness. Now we just have to find the Traveler.

17

Lore_Keeper_Ronan t1_iwxl488 wrote

There's a weird triangle thing found near the dark side of the moon. Best we not touch Nezerec's Grave.

6

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iwxbkew wrote

A ravishing ever-new place called the Underverse... the promised land - a constellation of dark new worlds.

4

andy_crypto t1_iwx8nhs wrote

I’m waiting for the black wafer, so dense it will swallow you instead of swallowing it.

2

jawshoeaw t1_iwy3qtj wrote

I … I know it sounds like a joke but …yes??

1

grrrrreat t1_iwwp5nw wrote

I still get the sense it's all about a failed model and nothing specifically special other than incomplete theorems.

Kinda like the saying "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

73

Dante2005 t1_iwwqhjf wrote

"Dark" was always the word for "unknown" or "unproven" so you are not wrong entirely.

If you can see that something affects another thing, but you cant see how exactly or why...call it dark and wait for more data.

Science can only work with the data it has.

It is not trying to be obscure, there are just something's that there are no answers too quite yet.

But data can be extrapolated, like how oddly the universe is speeding up in its expansion.

We will get there.

EDIT: I just saw the sub reddit that I am on. if you need me to delete this comment I fully understand.

60

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_iwx1skv wrote

Is it controversial to say dark matter is an unknown for science?

2

stouset t1_iwy2go0 wrote

Sort of.

We have a lot of data that requires something like dark matter to exist. There’s a bunch of matter, and it moves in a way that requires way more matter than what we can see. We can detect gravitational effects pretty much everywhere that greatly exceed what we’d expect from the matter we detect. We can detect this so well that we have intergalactic maps of where this extra matter must be.

We just… don’t know what it is. We’ve basically ruled out all the stuff that we know about. And problematically, everything at small scales like what we deal with in the solar system seems within what we’d expect with normal matter. But when we look farther out, stuff acts like there’s way more gravity than there otherwise should be.

7

makingthegreatest t1_iwx7q6y wrote

Everything is unknown to an extent. Dark matter however has been known to humans for decades (nearly century) but there are unknowns to it (:

6

TheRidgeAndTheLadder t1_iwx9ysp wrote

Sure, but there are alternate theories that are compatible with experiments into the modern day.

We don't know for sure that dark matter is a thing because we don't know for sure our model is relevant in that area.

0

mouse1093 t1_iwxtr68 wrote

No, not controversial at all. Dark matter is one prevailing theory that explains a number of odd phenomenon and observations that standard cosmology gets wrong. Things like the spin rate of galaxies is an example. There may be other explanations that fix this problem (say perhaps super gravity) but none have been any more confirmed that the others.

Dark matter is also unknown in the sense that other than prescription of what it should be, we don't what it actually is. None of our current particles fit the bill and the theoretical particles we've thought could work haven't shown themselves in any tests to make them.

6

SouthEasternGuy t1_iwyko07 wrote

Dark matter is basically the name specifically for the stuff that is having gravitational effects on things but that they can’t attribute to a proper source. It happens A LOT so they just call it dark matter.

It’s not controversial by any means, it’s specifically an unknown

2

echoAwooo t1_iwyegq5 wrote

Nope. We aren't even sure it's there, we're just pretty sure.

1

Bakkster t1_iwx941i wrote

>"Dark" was always the word for "unknown" or "unproven" so you are not wrong entirely.

I thought it was more specifically dark as in didn't absorb reflect or emit light or other reflective radiation, unlike cosmic dust and stars. We just see the gravitational lensing as if it were a dense cloud of dust, but no dust.

−4

Dante2005 t1_iwx9qbj wrote

I hear you, but dark in that form that you mentioned was about black holes, and in this you were 100% correct.

3

williemctell t1_ix083bh wrote

No, u/Bakkster is absolutely correct and this has ~nothing to do with black holes. Dark matter is “dark” because it doesn’t interact electromagnetically.

3

N8CCRG t1_iwyymll wrote

If you're arguing for a modified theory of gravity, lots of people have tried that, and lots of various measurements have set forth extremely good evidence that modified theories of gravity can't fix the problems. Meanwhile dark matter can.

6

typicalspecial t1_iwz89py wrote

I wouldn't discount modified gravity entirely. Of course dark matter can fix it, because dark matter is defined as whatever will fix it.

−1

N8CCRG t1_iwzb3yk wrote

Not true. Dark matter is just defined as matter that we can't see but otherwise behaves like matter, and that fixes all of the various measurements. Meanwhile, modified gravity doesn't. You can make a modification that tries to explain one measurement, but then it fails to fix a separate measurement, and often make problems worse, like the proverbial floorboard that gets hammered down on one end and the other end pops back up.

And that's not my opinion, that's what the actual publications routinely find.

5

typicalspecial t1_ix0lyt7 wrote

It behaves like matter in that it influences gravity, and that's about it. Proposed particles get ruled out just as modifications do. Ruling out a modification doesn't invalidate all possible models; ruling out proposed dark matter particles doesn't invalidate dark matter being a particle. We can't definitively say it's matter until we can verify its interaction with anything.

1

N8CCRG t1_ix0oxql wrote

That's what defines matter: it interacts via gravity. Other interactions are different for every other type of particle we know about. Some particles interact through some mechanisms and others don't, but they all interact through gravity.

Meanwhile, modifcations have been blanket ruled out, not individually. Dark matter has been measured in so many different ways, we have been able to say that no modified theory of gravity could explain all of those measurements.

3

Nick0013 t1_iwy510p wrote

Given all of our observations on gravity and relativity, this (to me) feels even less plausible than the idea that there’s mass in the universe that we don’t yet have detection methods for.

3

blade944 t1_iwwqvki wrote

Very true. They found that galaxies didn't behave as they should based on current understanding of physics. So instead of looking at a possible broken model they imagined dark matter and energy to explain it all. So they've been desperately looking for any evidence whatsoever to support the idea but have found none. Yet they still cling to their models and ostricize any and all that question general and special relativity.

−15

rydan t1_iwwteio wrote

I was told in college not to mention MOND or tell anyone that our professor mentioned it.

6

WrongAspects t1_iwx2yqv wrote

MOND was created to explain the spin rate of galaxies. It fails to explain all other observed effects of dark matter and has been by and large put in a shelf as an incomplete and possibly foolish theory.

12

gibfeetplease t1_ix0rib9 wrote

Hahaha what? MOND (which is what you’re describing) was heavily looked into, it’s just that it doesn’t seem to work well.

Physicists aren’t some dark cabal trying to cling to theories of the past, everyone wants to find something new. Taking a human view of things, if MOND was a good approach people wouldn’t jump on it, the chance of blowing apart GR and writing your name in history?

1

paulfromatlanta t1_iwwlb91 wrote

I'm confused. Are photons matter? I thought they were energy.

43

SithLordAJ t1_iwxb418 wrote

They are generally not considered matter. They have no rest mass, but do have momentum.

Im not familiar with this dark matter theory, but the idea of dark matter is that something functions like it has mass that cant be seen. I would surmise that there's more of a trick to it than "it's a photon that cant be absorbed".

33

poppinchips t1_iwy9apf wrote

I believe dark matter just doesn't respond to the electromagnetic field. It doesn't absorb, reflect or emit electromag radiation. Beyond that is anyone's guess.

11

TrippyReality t1_iwyinc2 wrote

By looking at galaxy cluster formation and the formation of the universe, matter should be even throughout, but yet the cosmic microwave background shows web-like features. The inner edges of the galaxy should move faster since there is more mass in the middle compared to the outer edge of galaxies, but it moves the same. Since we don’t have a theory of gravity or graviton particle to explain it, mathematical models can only predict the existence of something that we can’t observe.

8

HannsGruber t1_iwynn4k wrote

My high-dea hypothesis is dark matter is the gravitational signature of the true 4D structure of the universe

5

TrippyReality t1_iwzgssm wrote

Reality could be a simulation like the matrix because even at the quantum level, there is no materialism. Everything is all waves of probability, even matter at the quantum level. Our perception could all be a projection of a 3dimensional virtual world.

2

forsale90 t1_iwz2isa wrote

There is no one dark matter theory. Some particles that could be part of it would couple to photons, like Axions.

What we talk of most of the time, cold dark matter or WIMPs don't couple to photons though.

3

JohnMayerismydad t1_iwwn58f wrote

I thought energy was matter

23

tampora701 t1_iwwpcqe wrote

Does it matter? I don't have the energy.

59

[deleted] t1_iwxvop0 wrote

You should rest, and stay there, unless acted upon

8

sciguy52 t1_iwxi8bk wrote

Flip side of the same coin. Energy can be made into matter, and matter can be made into energy based on E=mc2

14

tornpentacle t1_iwxbpt7 wrote

No but matter is energy. Squares and rectangles situation

9

WeLLrightyOH t1_iwxwrco wrote

Photons are wave/particles. They are not ordinary matter (most think of ordinary matter as items made up of atomic nuclei). Photons have zero mass as they do not interact with the Higgs field. Photons do have energy which is inversely related to it’s wavelength. Most visible light is about 2 eV. Photons aren’t energy per se, but they do have energy.

18

Hanflander t1_iwx5sqj wrote

“Photons have mass? I didn’t know they were Catholic!“

13

sciguy52 t1_iwxi44e wrote

They are talking about dark photons. Hypothetical photons that do not act like known observable photons. Might interact with dark matter. Or possibly regular matter as they propose here.

7

SimoneNonvelodico t1_iwyblfi wrote

Honestly "dark photons" makes zero sense. If they're photons they're excitations of the EM quantum field, if they're of some other field they're just a different particle. I guess it could mean they're from a massless field, like photons and unlike regular dark matter (whatever that is).

1

carbonqubit t1_iwyzp4f wrote

A dark photon's mass would be generated from the Higgs or Stueckelberg mechanism and be weakly coupled to electrically charged particles through kinetic mixing with a photon.

Dark photons could also be used to explain the difference between the measured and calculated anomalous magnetic moment of the muon that was first detected in 1959 at CERN.

5

jawshoeaw t1_iwy3ze9 wrote

Matter cannot go the speed of light , so no. But if they smack into you they have momentum . Hence lightsails

3

SimoneNonvelodico t1_iwybfru wrote

Yeah but we can't call them dark energy because we already have that and it's a different thing.

3

Marchello_E t1_iwwsc3f wrote

Keyword: "may"

>Researchers are already planning to test this prediction.

Also

>The theory* of dark photons assumes...

They probably mean "hypothesis".

27

Publius82 t1_ix0j99i wrote

A hypothesis can be tested. It's a notion.

1

couldentcareless t1_iwwjjlt wrote

Prove dark matter exists before blaming anything on it .......

8

tinny66666 t1_iwx2y2x wrote

We have some observations that show galaxies with and a few without companion dark matter. It has momentum and interacts with gravity. The Bullet Cluster is considered to provide direct evidence of dark matter, and none of the MOND theories to date can explain these types of observations.

Edit: I think a lot of people mix up dark energy and dark matter in this regard. Dark energy amounts to a fudge factor to make the maths work, but we know a lot more about dark matter. It really does appear to exist, but because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic field we can't see it directly.

25

couldentcareless t1_iwxb8ur wrote

Something is happening you can't explain but you have an idea nothing provable. All you need now is to ask me for money and you could run for public office

−30

DeadNeko t1_iwxhg1t wrote

They can explain it, they can explain it mathematically and theoretically they've designed experiments based on models and have some observational evidence your just to stupid to understand the science

19

L7Death t1_iwxnk19 wrote

That's not pure science. That's a lot of math.

The funny thing about math is that various forms can be remarkably similar. The same math can explain completely different things. The equations for gravitational lensing are equivalent to basic refraction, for instance. Perhaps there's no gravitational lensing. Perhaps it's just particles acting as a lense, for instance. Though, that's really besides the point. The point is the same math can describe very different physical phenomenon.

RelMOND is basically as good as LCDM in many ways. Very different approaches with similar results in many cases.

We know we have a dark gravity problem. Gravity is just not very well understood across vast (cosmic to subatomic) scales.

The interesting bit is that by 'fixing gravity' both dark matter and dark energy may become entirely unneeded, or at least significantly reduced in magnitude. That's appealing as it's simpler, ya know, ol occums razor.

Yet our best models (regardless) still fail too frequently. So we still haven't got it right.

−5

DeadNeko t1_iwy32jp wrote

There is no such thing as "pure science". All scientific theories require so framework by which to understand them. Saying the framework is math isnt lesser.

Sure but you can rule certain explanations through experiments designed to spot the differences this is well known in science. And scientists design experiments all the time to do this.

Occums razor isnt a rule you must follow. In science the best theory is the one that makes the most testable hypothesises.

No one in science thinks the models are right they simply think they are most correct ones we have. Which is true if there's a flaw science will inevitably course correct, and that's already been happening with multiple physics theories losing popularity and some other ideas coming back. The issue is people assuming one idea is right and more worthy of research without any understanding of them.

The simpler answer may seem correct but the universe is under no obligation to be simple, or even be intuitive to us at all.

7

Grogosh t1_iwwqpfa wrote

At this point its the fairies of the astrophysics world.

−12

timberwolf0122 t1_iwwtdoi wrote

Take that people who thought my dark light bulb was a stupid idea!

3

pikabuddy11 t1_iwxkkv1 wrote

They predict the dark photons to have mass which makes sense since they say the dark photons change into normal photons. This like how neutrinos have to have mass to be able to change flavors. But does that imply this photon has mass which means it’s not a photon?? The whole point is they’re massless and can move at c right?

2

heard_enough_crap t1_iwxt88t wrote

I think Dark Matter is right up there with the cosmological constant and the aether until someone proves it actually exists.

2

m223856 t1_iwyvxu1 wrote

Dark Brandon has approved this message.

2

AutoModerator t1_iwwj1ih wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Tacotuesday8 t1_iwxkp6m wrote

Dark photon was my nickname in college.

1

LazerPT t1_iwxm790 wrote

It's a testable theory so we'll find out

1

Skullmaggot t1_iwy3dsx wrote

Just let me know when I can go fight the Ing for planet Aether.

1

aShittierShitTier4u t1_iwwuazr wrote

I know how to make a photon by energizing an electron up to a higher valence, then it makes a photon when it goes back down to the normal valence. But I don't know how to make a dark photon. How can I make a dark photon? Do I need a quasar? How about a particle accelerator? I would like to have my own atom smasher. You never know when it might come in handy.

0

kremit73 t1_iwxkqiy wrote

Photons are massless so are not matter. I guess the main issue there was naming it dark matter in the first place.

0

BHPhreak t1_iwxq080 wrote

i had this thought that all the starlight in galaxies might be dark matter - mass is energy, why shouldnt energy be mass? There is abundant starlight inside the galaxy itself.

Dark photons reminds me of that thought

0

gibfeetplease t1_ix0s26h wrote

Good thought, and actually radiation density is a major factor in cosmological models! Sadly it’s nowhere near sufficient to explain the effects observed by dark matter, as well as a few other properties it’s been deduced to have.

1

EvadingBan42 t1_iwxtqba wrote

If there are “dark photons, matter, and energy” then we are inching ever closer to a mirror universe existing alongside our own that is completely invisible to the naked eye.

Perhaps this is the answer to the Fermi paradox, we can’t see any aliens because our technology has not advanced sufficiently to peer across this veil. Imagine donning dark energy glasses and seeing an entire galaxy full of dark matter engines and ships blasting across space totally unaffected by normal matter or physics.

0

mistr_k t1_iwyqhgc wrote

From my understanding of it, Dark Energy isn't really related to Dark Matter in that way. Dark Energy is something that is causing the universe to accelerate and expand space. It's dark in that we don't understand what kind of energy it is because we can only observe what it does at this point.

3

groovy604 t1_iwxwth4 wrote

TIL we'll known photons are the mysterious dark matter

0

Quenya3 t1_iwxkqbk wrote

This is starting to get a little suspicious. Makes me wonder if something foundational in accepted theories might be wrong. I am in no way an expert in these fields but something in these Dark explanations feels off.

−5

mouse1093 t1_iwxue6t wrote

We've known for a long time that either GR and/or QM must be wrong since they don't mesh with each other as they currently stand

3

stormrockox t1_iwxfxkj wrote

This is false. They actually discovered a huge and massive object is causing the heating: your mother

−9

jens-2420 t1_iwx21uv wrote

This „Dark something“ explanations are just a way to save some mathematical formulas to work by adding a term. Not really convincing.

−10

rydan t1_iwwt98t wrote

How to lose all credibility. Dark anything by definition cannot heat anything. This is why we call it Dark.

−20

answeryboi t1_iwx05dn wrote

Is all heating done via electromagnetic radiation?

5

FwibbFwibb t1_iwy8pr8 wrote

No, you can heat things up through gravity. How do you think stars heat up gas to the point of fusion?

2