What is Digg?49 Comments
- Katsushiro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10And you've just shown your clear ignorance of how science works. No one's taking anything on faith. And even now, 'dark matter' is not universally accepted among all astrophysicists. But dark matter is not simply something some scientist made up and other scientists went 'hey, that's cool' and adopted. The science behind dark matter is both deep and very convincing, but it basically boils down to this: all the visible matter in the universe moves, is clumped together, and behaves *exactly* as if there were these gigantic clouds of matter that we cannot see exerting gravitational pull on them on a cosmic scale. It looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, it walks like a duck.. but we still don't see the duck. We're fairly certain it's there because every single shred of evidence we find points to it. The possibilities for why we can't see it are varied, and, using the duck analogy, it's like saying 'okay, we can't see the duck, so let's find out why we can't see the duck. Is the duck invisible? Or do we simply need to turn on the lights in the room so we can see the perfectly visible duck?'
Apply Occam's Razor: All the visible matter in the universe behaves exactly as if there were gigantic clouds of dark matter exerting their gravitational pull on the cosmos. Now, we can adjust every single thing we know about how gravity, motion, space and time so that we are able to say 'the universe behaves exactly as if these clouds of dark matter existed, but they don't really exist, it's just that the laws of physics are designed in just such a way that they behave *as if* these clouds existed', or, we can simply say 'there are giant clouds of something we can't see yet affecting the structure of the visible universe.'. One of these explanations is a needless complication of existing and well-understood principles created only to try and deny a possibility we're uncomfortable with (much like solipsism), and one is a simple explanation of our observations that fits in well with all our current observations and theories.
It's not faith. It's observation, measurement, and logic. Science is not about certainties, unlike faith. Science is about possibilities, and about explanations. Study, experimentation, calculations, and observations have led us to find the theory of the existence of dark matter to be the simplest, most workable *explanation* of the actual, observed structure of the universe. Many other explanations are possible, yes, including the possibility that a supernatural being such as God, or Giant Space Fairies, simply grabbed all the stars and put them into place in just such a way that it appears that giant clouds of dark matter must exist. But at the end of the day, the simplest, most straightforward explanation for the current observed structure of the universe is this: The universe behaves as if these clouds of dark matter exist, and so, we try to understand them and find them, and until we either discover them and explain them, or we discover something new that provides a better explanation, we will continue to explore the possibility of dark matter. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"no way to detect it"
Hey now, Mr. Expert!
It seem to bend light, hence have some mass, but the main problem is that it's very, very weakly interacting with forces of nature. I.e. exhibit similar properties as something like neutrinos. (no, not neutrons :p) It seems dark matter is heavier than neutrinos though, which was a bit why that idea was discarded after the 80's. - tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8http://digg.com/tech_news/Digg_this_story_if_you_want_Digg_user_itchle_banned
- DiggityDugged, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is really ***** cool - wasnt expecting to see a map of this stuff so soon, it's been a while since we've heard anything big about dark matter. hopefully this expediates more breakthroughs
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6There is scientific evidence it exists. Further experiments, like the supercollider coming online in 10 months will further solidify dark matter as real or imaginary.
- freespace, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"They can't see it, no way to detect it, and its completely theoretical....but its science so it must be true!"
If that was true, how did Hubble manage to map it? How can something that can be mapped be "theoretical" in existence?
Cheers,
Steve - dynky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's HubbleSite's full release on the topic -- more comprehensive than the BBC article imo:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/01/ - cuoops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3More pictures and info here....
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2007/01/image/ - dudad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It will keep the theorists busy. But like the article states, the big question is what dark matter is. This will take a few more years of building and experimenting so that we hopefully can detect it in other ways besides gravitational lensing (and then more years to actually use it!). Hopefully we will discover more of it's physical properties.
What I'm curious about is the density of this in the 3D map. I wonder if there's a map of that or an error to it? I wonder why did it shape the way it did. Is there dark matter in the empty voids but it just isn't dense enough to be seen? How does dark matter influence earth (albeit on whatever small scale). - airship, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Maybe if we sent Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie to live on the Hubble?
- Desolite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4i wonder if they used the smell-o-scope.
- dudad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2To sum up what Katsushiro said and put it a different way..
The biggest reason why dark matter was predicted was because Newton's law of gravity wasn't predicting the behavior of the most massive objects in the universe. They acted like they had more mass than we could see, so we predicted dark matter. - drsnooks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3not quite : we know that either -
a) something *must* be there because we *can* detect the influence it has on matter, or
b) our theories about gravity are wrong
as our best theory of gravity has stood up to most tests with extraordinary precision (can any other theory of gravity account for the excess precession of mercury's perihelion AND gravitational lensing?) it makes most sense to assume that something is there. We can't see this whatever-it-is because it doesn't shine, hence we call it "dark matter".
As for what exactly this something is, we don't know yet, but we *do* know some of the constraints on how it can and can't behave.
You can't see an electron, but we know that they're there because of the effect they have, which is easy to detect (hint - what are you reading this on, right now?)
So what's the problem again? - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Not sure why I was dugg down.. Maybe some need links: http://www.astro.gla.ac.uk/users/martin/outreach/lensing.html
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Something I think should be said about this article with that sort of summary, is that it's still not 100% confirmed to not be some sort of artifacts or defects in the analysis. It's not said that something is wrong about the data either though, just that the study still need to be taken with some grains of salt until it has been further analysed.
- MacHarborGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2but is the dark matter made of dolamite?
Dr Farnsworth: Dolomite, the tough black mineral that won't cop out when there's heat all about. - hadak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1***** a that's cool.
- sockpuppets, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'M IN UR SPACE MAKIN UR MATTER DARK
- hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I can reasonably prove that God exists with logic and philosophy. I can't measure God, nor can I explain the nature of God, and that's where reasonable people can disagree (provided they do so without being disagreeable).
Dark matter, on the other hand, is simply a huge crock of *****. It is the proverbial flying spaghetti monster. It's a gimmick used to plug holes in equations based on existing models and theories. Scientistis are basically too cowardly to consider that existing Newtonian physics might be too simplistic, and while it provides reasonably accurate approximations of phenomena on a planetary and solar scale, it begins to diverge on larger scales. A newer theory, Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MoND), explains observations on large scales, doesn't rewrite the entire universe, and keeps all of our equations elegant.
If you're wondering how scientists are able to map a crock of *****, it's simple. These aren't direct observations of dark matter itself - such a thing is impossible by the very nature of the beast. What you see is a map of empty space where dark matter must be in order to affect the motion and behavior of normal matter. It's the equivalent of saying "the flying spaghetti monster must be there, becuase it isn't anywhere else". - jhshukla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FTA:
These clumps are connected via bridges of dark matter called filaments. The clumps and filaments form a loose network - like a web.
in the pic i see clumps, not strands. anyone got a better pic? - kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What idiot forgets is the Earth is dark matter.
Dark matter is that stuff which is has little or no luminosity. Some of it is ordinary stuff like planets, dwarf stars, comets, moons and dust. There is other stuff that is out there that can't be accounted for. This is another type of dark matter. We don't think that the spaces between galaxies are filled with cold dark planets, or other ordinary non luminous matter.
So if your going to object to the fanciful notion of dark matter, don't be stupid and lump all dark matter together, because the Earth clearly exists. - Retuow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1looks freakin'.. weird :S
- OneZeroZeroOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1SteelChicken: You're fantasically ignorant. I'm just not sure if it's willful or not.
- br549, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Dark Matter: Invisible, Mysterious and Perhaps Nonexistent
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051010_dark_matter.html - ramaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Way cool. Impressive. Thought-provoking. Significant.
- kafka47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I always knew we lived in an awesome section of bubble wrap...
- compressedaudio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It reminds me of frog spawn.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So dark matter must be something completely different (ignore Monty Python connection) from normal matter since as it congregates and grows "clumpy", its increase in mass fails to produce the sort of nuclear fusion reaction we would see with normal matter. I hope we can find out what it is in my lifetime.
- ktorbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why is it that every time we have a story on Digg related to the Hubble it comes from the BBC? It makes you realize that the American press could care less.
- tedc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I wonder what the MOND/TeVeS camp make of this?
- Exploit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What if your thinking is foggy and there is no brain afterall?
- wbreim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thats what she said...
oooooooh yeeeeeeeee! - theOster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1it looks kind of... i dunno..."made up"
- opticaltempest, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Where is it?
- crossers, on 07/17/2008, -0/+0waw it's cool. and so nice!
http://www.shpe-sac.org
http://www.ocflex.com/
http://www.trgovinca.org
http://www.chasr.org/ - earthwormjeff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dark matter?!? Where?!?
- icarus5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0you must see my theory that i publish at september(9)
www.icarus5.com
and this link
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=first_dark_matter_then_dark_energy_now_a&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1&ref=rss
there is a creation of mass and energy at the edge of the universe
pleace remark - compressedaudio, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1who is she?
- magicjava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would like to believe this, but I've just seen a few too many photoshopped pictures from NASA to take anything they say seriously unless I see actual undoctored photos. Anyone can make stuff up on a computer.
After all these reports of dark matter, dark energy, phantom matter, dark force, finding out that Inflation breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, super nova explosions that don't get bigger, and on and on, I'm willing to say these guys just don't know what they're talking about. - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you look very closely at the map, you'll see a small picture of a serpent, and a label that says "here there be dragons". Lift the map up, and you'll find a giant tortoise holding up all the dark matter.
Dark matter. What a cosmic crock of *****. - BabyBrumak, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Meh, it's interesting, but still far from conclusive proof.
- djfrey, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5The difference is that if Dark Matter is proved to be rubbish, scientists won't have too much of a problem dropping it in favor of something prove-able. Can't really say that about a lot of fanatical religious types, unfortunately.
- jgoodstein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What if the lenses are just foggy and theres really no dark matter bending light at all?
- nerogtr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1god dammit joel!
//digg down. - wbreim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1what's that smell? oh right... science is the *****!
- Wonderkind, on 10/12/2007, -13/+4Cool. Dark matter is just like God. We believe it because people who claim to know tell us it's there.
http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2004/11/kissing-hanks-ass.html
Attack! - SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2"Dark Matter" is just as silly and stupid as some you claim people of faith to be.
They can't see it, no way to detect it, and its completely theoretical....but its science so it must be true!
All hail science! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -27/+1More info on the topic: http://www.myspace.com/911falseflagop
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is