What is Digg?44 Comments
- Berkana, on 04/17/2008, -2/+24Dude, you don't know what you're talking about. The reason dark matter is hypothesized to exist is that calculations based on observable light-giving mass suggest that light-producing bodies such as stars do not contain enough mass to account for the observed phenomena; what ever else is providing the rest of the mass out there isn't giving off light, and that there's a hell of a lot of it out there besides planets and other rubble orbiting stars, hence the name "dark matter". That's not "weighing less than nothing"; that's having so much mass that they influence the movement of stars and galaxies.
"even ballons don't really weigh less."
Go to Wikipedia and look up buoyancy, please. - inactive, on 04/17/2008, -1/+9You're not really a scientist are you, "Jovensdesciple" ?
"Derrr" - Yage2006, on 04/17/2008, -1/+8Derr you don't know anything about dark matter apparently do some googleing next time else you come off like a tard.
- Karmavs, on 04/17/2008, -0/+5Would you care to give an alternate, more likely hypothesis for the situation Berkana describes? No? Dark matter is the most likely cause at this point.
Also, dark matter isn't anti-matter. It is, as the name implies; matter which is extremely dark. (ie, it doesn't emit or reflect enough light to be detectable) - scoffey, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_Dy ...
- obzinator, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3I'd love for some proof of dark matter, but this feels like the boy who cries "wolf."
"The controversy dates back to 1998 when the DAMA collaboration claimed it had found evidence for particles of dark matter passing through its detector..." - Yage2006, on 04/17/2008, -4/+6The big question is can you smoke it?
- HPMNick, on 04/17/2008, -1/+3There is a big problem with the methodology they use to detect some of these weak particles like neutrinos and the possibly mythical dark matter. They put some very sensitive materials, shield it off from other known sources, and seal it in a container and wait for a change to trigger off.
There are some problems with this. Firstly, how do you tell whether it was truly an unknown particle? How do you know if its a failure of your experimental conditions? Waiting for something to happen does not really show that the particle you are looking for caused it. If you can't systematically trace back the cause to a specific set of events, the experiment is almost useless.
Neutirnos are a good example of how they got lucky. The same experiment was used with neutrinos, and detection of neutrinos coincided with a detection of a supernova explosion... something that would've been expected. However, if the "detection" of neutrinos had not coincided with a particular event (lets say they just went off one day), it would have been experimentally useless.
All that you'd show is that something interacted with your well protected, but very sensitive materials. It could have been their protective containers reacting to something, or some local events caused by their direct surroundings.
Of course the tricky part with dark matter would be "How do you trace back to an event you can't see or detect?". I admit its a tough nut to crack... but the test should be more reliable than that. - scoffey, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2the only realistic proposed alternative to the existence of dark matter (i.e. unseen matter that interacts with baryonic matter only gravitationally) is a theory called MOND - MOdified Newtonian Dynamics, in which attractive forces change with scale.
thought i'd add that. - inactive, on 04/17/2008, -0/+2science is true!
- Stratochief66, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily, but if it primarily interacts via gravity I imagine we would find much of it where lots of gravity is found.
- MrGibarian, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1I am a bit skeptical, taking into account their 1998 statement that they had detected Dark Matter, yet there was no real verification.
- RealmDown, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"is expected to announce"
Why bother when they just announced it for you ? - Abaddon1125, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1My astronomy professor once said "If the scale and complexity of the universe makes you feel small, then dark matter should make you feel insignificant. 90% of the universe is made of the stuff we're not."
- RubineBoy, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2Turn off the light and it's everywhere! That's why I am still scared in the dark, but that doesn't matter.
- lukeev, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Even darker laws will prevent that.
- inactive, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2And by dumb ***** you mean scientists that are much smarter then you, correct?
- Metasquares, on 04/17/2008, -1/+2I've heard this before, but whatever, carry on.
- KineticShampoo, on 04/17/2008, -2/+3Hahahahaha what a ***** moron. xD
- troon, on 04/17/2008, -4/+5Give it a rest, will you?
- lukeev, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1If there are infinite parallel dimensions as some physicists claim, that means at some point, somewhere, you ***** a goat.
- wynja, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1The real problem is not whether dark matter exists, but how the hell can it account for 90% on the universe's mass? That's what portion of the universe must be dark matter for current gravitational models to fit with observation.
- franl, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Just to be clear, the stuff we're made of is electrically charged and so interacts electromagnetically. Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically, meaning that it not only is dark (i.e., emits no light), but it's invisible (does not absorb or refract light).
- robszol, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Let's hope this isn't just pathological science...
- thisissami, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1i think it's sad that stuff like this gets so few diggs and so few comments while LOLCat stuff and every little thing hilary clinton does get thousands of diggs and hundreds of comments...
- HPMNick, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wouldn't a particle with these properties be extremely inclined to form massive gravitational bodies? If no force is working to repel dark matter from other dark matter, it should bunch up very quickly.
Wouldn't this create a ton of singularities (or one big one) wherever there are large masses of dark matter?
Instead of small little pieces of dark matter everywhere, there should be massive clumps causing gravitational distortions all over the place.. - Diderotten, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1Wait for official announcements. I hope everything they said is substantiated.
- Acolyte357, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1"Firstly, how do you tell whether it was truly an unknown particle?" That is why it takes so long, they have to sort through the data.
I assume you mean "Neutrinos". "The neutrino was first postulated in December 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli." and "In 1956 Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire published the article "Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation" in Science..." There was no "getting lucky". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino - scoffey, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1you're right - dark matter is unevenly distributed across the universe. it has been observationally shown that large clusters and groups of galaxies contain a much higher fraction of dark, unseen matter than has been detected in our own Milky Way galaxy, neighboring galaxies, and the solar neighborhood (see the Coma galaxy cluster).
the clumping you describe is similar to a theory of the origin of universe structure - cold dark matter (i.e. dark matter with less than relativistic velocities) clumps together, forming a framework for baryonic matter to assemble and form galaxies, clusters, etc. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_dark_matter)
also, DM doesn't necessarily have anything to do with singularities. - bradleyland, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that dumb 'ol standard model. What good are effective theories anyway?
- Stratochief66, on 04/17/2008, -0/+1You make an interesting argument. We don't know enough about the nature of dark matter to say whether or not that has already happened. There are a ton of really big singularities, one at the core of each galaxy. Once any form of matter goes singular, we really can't tell what is inside, so maybe some of the black holes we observe are mostly dark matter.
Even if dark matter tends to clump, all we can do is try to detect it in all the ways we know how. The bits that haven't clumped and are still floating around might pass directly through us, allowing for easier detection than heading out and searching for clumps elsewhere. - littlejon, on 04/17/2008, -2/+2From the way the beginning is worded, the part about renaming a controversial experiment and trying it slightly differently made me feel like they took a page from the Creationists' book of Ways to Destroy Our Children.
- HPMNick, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0"Not necessarily, but if it primarily interacts via gravity I imagine we would find much of it where lots of gravity is found."
Yes, and it would also cause gravity where there should otherwise be very little or none.. In fact this was the reason it was proposed (to explain gravitational anomalies). However, I would expect to see something like strange unexplained clustering and uneven distributions of mass (since dark matter would likely clump more easily than regular matter, it should be more distributed).
Also, I would expect something like the sun to have a nice big chunk of dark matter trapped in it, or in orbit around it. With only weak forces and gravitational forces, every gravitational body should have dark matter in and around it. - wiredDeath, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Actually the big question is whether or not it will run Crysis.
- furatail, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0All it takes is two pieces of glass made of lacquer and nut oil.
- RealmDown, on 04/17/2008, -3/+3I have a theory. I'm thinking that God created evolution in order to make more creationists. :-D
- Elliuotatar, on 04/17/2008, -1/+1Dark matter? That would go great with my mushroom! Now we just have to find a way to...
- RealmDown, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1Absolutely! And I got a bag of it here for you. cheap! I know, I know, it looks like there is nothing there, but that is the nature of dark matter. It is GOOD STUFF man! Call me anytime you want another bag....
- gkiltz, on 04/17/2008, -2/+1They MAY be onto something, or not!
This absolutely requires further study! - jamesdew, on 04/17/2008, -2/+0"Something we dont really understand changed with the seasons like someone thought maybe dark matter might do. We've found it!!!"
- gllopc, on 04/17/2008, -10/+6Okay, so how will the creationists turn this into proof for god?
- inactive, on 04/17/2008, -21/+3The reason dark matter is hypothesized to exist is that dumb ***** like you will believe in it. And you had the best reply to my comment, which is why i responded to your dumbass. Dude, I like science and stuff like this but we should not believe in stuff which doesn't make sense.
- inactive, on 04/17/2008, -33/+3No!!!!! Because it doesn't exist. (Dark matter is matter which actually weighs less than nothing). Derrr. even ballons don't really weigh less.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is