What is Digg?82 Comments
- SpectralSounds, on 10/10/2007, -2/+23"In fact, only 4 percent of the matter and energy in the universe has been found."
So... let me get this straight. They cant find this matter or energy... Yet, they know that they are missing exactly 96% of it? How would they know how much they are missing, if they never knew how much there was to begin with. - Neiby, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17Even more interesting to me is this: science is largely about making some assumptions, developing a hypothesis, testing it, watching the results, adjusting the hypothesis, and testing again. In this case, we've made assumptions and developed theories. However, when we realize that there is a *huge* discrepancy between observed reality and our calculations, we don't go back and challenge our original assumptions and theories, at least in this case. Could it be that there is no such thing as Dark Matter and Dark Energy? Could it be that we're just really, really wrong about a lot of things?
- lpmiller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I have hidden it. You may have the rest of the universe, after you follow a series of clues, each one more fiendish than the last.
- dmosher, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8"The problem with detecting dark matter, thought to make up 22 percent of the universe's mass/energy pie, is that light doesn't interact with it. But it does exhibit the tug of gravity."
That's why physicists know--or think they know--there's a big chunk of the universe missing. Gravity is too tight-knit around galaxies for visible matter alone to explain, but galaxies are speeding apart faster and faster... shouldn't gravity be pulling them together? Contradictory, indeed.
What is believed is happening, as the article hints, is that "dark matter" is keeping the galactic clusters together, but "dark energy" is a weaker force acting on them and forcing them apart (when they should really be flying apart much more slowly). It's sort of like what happens in an atom--protons stick together thanks to the short-ranged strong force, but are being repulsed by their positive charges over long range. So the atom stays together but repulses other positive atomic nuclei.
If the search for dark matter fails? Back to the drawing board. - FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Sarbanes Oxley is a pain
- FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I was thinking along the same lines below. You're supposed to alter your theories to match reality, you don't just keep making up reality until it aligns with your theory. The current theory(ies) may match a lot of observation, but if you have to start making stuff up, then you theory is probably wrong.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10The Posting of a Moron.
- str3ama, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Carl Sagan described us as a 'pale blue dot'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PaleBlueDot.jpg (Check out this image of Earth as taken by Voyager 1)
that's how insignificant we are in terms of the universe. All the knowledge, all the wars, all the people we've ever known throughout history existed on this tiny little dot that's barely visible in the cosmos. - FearlessFreep, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The model says "this is what should happen".
They look up in the sky and don't find it, so they wonder where it is.
Makes me wonder if the model is wrong - theworldisflat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Because you hang out with your uncle a tad too much?
- strictnein, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The reason they think there is something else is fairly simple. You can observe and estimate fairly accurately the mass of a galaxy. Now, the problem is that galaxies are spinning way too fast for the amount of mass they appear to have. They should be basically tearing themselves apart, flinging their stars off into the universe. But they are not doing so, they are staying together.
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Maybe the theory they are using to calculate the mass of the universe is fundamentally flawed.
- Gugel, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6This make 10^ -60 sense.
- bdurkin, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Implying that it doesn't is inaccurate as well no?
- Mockylock, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"A detailed inventory" of mass in the universe. As if someone's going to audit them if they're wrong. ;)
- gojcaj, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5i was in the middle of typing the exact same thing when I glanced up and saw your comment. makes absolutely no sense.
- Monolith4, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Another article i read a few months back summed it up pretty well by saying that the known universe could really be just a bit of pollution in the wider cosmic scheme. Doesnt do much for your self-image, eh?
- drmobutu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I bet they didn't check the cracks in the sofa...
- shadowspawn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.
- ThePict, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Why is it considered cool to be stupid, here on Digg?
- Comus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Sometimes the things we don't understand are more intriguing than the things we do. Btw, from my layman's understanding, there needs to be Dark matter and energy in order for many Physics equations to work. Locally, physics equations work very well and are supported by all kinds of experimental evidence (this is why many are called "laws"). When you look at the universe as a whole, however, at least the part that we can see, these equations don't seem to work. So scientists have two options: 1. Claim the laws of Physics are wrong or 2. Suggest that we can't see all of the matter/energy in the universe. They have (wisely in my opinion) opted for #2.
- Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Any theory can be wrong, especially those made up ad hoc to explain something newly discovered. The current theory is that the cause of the discrepancy is that the difference between the two is made up of something we haven't seen yet. But theories like this are always active, they are building better and have build detectors for detecting a certain kind of theorized dark matter. if nothing is observed then something else will be theorized, or some other existing theory will gain more credit. If something is found then credence is given to the current theory
- nairanvac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Yeah, they call that a religion.
- chubbybubba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Takes a lot of Faith to believe only in science.
- PaulOwen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4(Don't let life get you down, Mrs. Brown ... )
Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at nine hundred miles an hour,
That's orbiting at nineteen miles a second, so it's reckoned,
A sun that is the source of all our power.
The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at forty thousand miles an hour,
Of the galaxy we call the 'Milky Way'.
Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars.
It's a hundred thousand light years side to side.
It bulges in the middle, sixteen thousand light years thick,
But out by us, it's just three thousand light years wide.
We're thirty thousand light years from galactic central point.
We go 'round every two hundred million years,
And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.
The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding
In all of the directions it can whizz
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute, and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth,
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth. - Qeveren, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Why can't we do both?
- vrillusions, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ultimately the answer boils down to 42
- enjoysferrets, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3actually to be specific, thats how insignificant we are in the solar system. We are far less significant than that. I'd be hard pressed to be even called a dot, let alone a blue dot...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1There is no dark side of energy really, matter of fact it's all dark.........
- Kedyn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's deep.
- Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sort of reminds me of a piece of fairy cake.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I lost my temper, shouldn't have.
Science is a language, and any language can be used for myth and mysticism, including the language of math.
As TAP vanishes the whole field of particle physics will wither away - hatepirate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The universe is a closed system...
- Masonsmith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why is it called dark mass? Well that's what I get when I try to pull an answer out of my ass too.
Don't ask me to explain dark energy. - Shogi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The whole subject of dark matter and dark energy is really really interesting. As the article states though, they could exist, or this could yet again be another manifestation of flaws in our theories of gravity and such. These next couple decades will be very fascinating for the world of science, I'm just glad I'm alive to see it.
- oilcan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3prove it.
and don't give me any crap about redshift. there are better ways to describe that phenomenon that don't require manufacturing the specter of dark matter/energy. - theroyalweman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You have a scale that reads 100 pounds. Sitting on the scale is a four pound bag of sugar. Sitting next to the bag of sugar is a box labeled "Dark Matter."
- AegisC, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'll get this out of the way so the discussion can continue...
I am in ur univers hidin ur energies - bsetexast, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All your base are belong to us
- jhshukla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1there is a difference between making stuff up & predicting existence of something hitherto unknown.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Chuck ***** Norris ate the rest of it!
*runs* - heresy_fnord, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you don't know where the rest of the Universe is, how do you know about 4%? Why not 20% or 1%?
- wright3279, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Typical digg comment could be: Bush and the oil companies stole it!
- Stratochief66, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If someone comes up with an adequate alternative solution to the problem, then I wouldn't expect to find dark matter anymore. That is the difference between real science and that thing you are referring to. Also, you don't have to believe that dark matter exists to search for it, but it is kind of your scientific responsibility to follow that lead if it seems the most likely to pan out. For instance, Einstein didn't like Quantum Mechanics, which was new in his time because it suggested that 'God rolled dice', but instead of flat out denying it or blindly believing in it, Einstein instead focused his efforts on trying to reconcile QM with his beliefs and his own theory of Relativity to form a 'Theory of Everything'.
- sergiolopes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"They cant find this matter or energy... Yet, they know that they are missing exactly 96% of it?"
Scientists can't detect dark matter or dark energy. What they CAN do is detect and measure their effects.
If you think about it, and forgive me if it's a poor analogy, YOU cannot see gravity. But if you throw a rock in the air and observe its motion and then repeat the experiment in the moon (for the sake of argument let's pretend you can leap to and fro whenever you want) and observe its motion then, you will be able to draw some conclusions about the force of gravity in each place. And to make those rough calculations, you don't need to SEE gravitons or the warped spacetime. All you needed was to measure its effects. - andycr512, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That makes a whole lot of sense.
"There's 96% of the universe we haven't seen."
"How do you know that?"
"I've seen it." - rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1retarded science, like my college physics teacher said, "we know how large infinity is"....okay. i think he meant, the "known universe"
-
Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 