Do you belive dark matter exists? If so, what is it made of? If not, how do you explain the phenomena attributed to it?

>>16713542 (OP)
>it either exists or it doesn't exist
dumb take, both are true. dark matter is like virtual particles. it exists and it doesn't at the same time

>>16713542 (OP)
No, Because I have a triple digit IQ.

>If not, how do you explain the phenomena attributed to it?
Jewish physic is bad at math. This is what happens when you base your entire field on the jewish creation myth. Literally.

>>16713542 (OP)
All terrestrial experiments have returned null results. WIMPs are pretty much dead. Muh axions are almost dead. Sterile neutrinos are sterile for a reason and need something else to be observed for confirmation.

Every pheno model that tries to introduce dark matter is completely arbitrary and involves assigning an extra group to the Standard Model in the most retarded fashion.
>dude what if we like take a direct product of the SM group with some random compact Lie group and just a bunch of random representations with masses conveniently above current accelerator data
I haven’t seen anyone do anything interesting like semidirect products of solvable groups because pheno physicists are retards who don’t even know the difference between a Lie group and a Lie algebra.

Two things that I subscribe to:
1. Most likely the astro retards are just doing something wrong. Astrophysics is barely a science because 95% of data analysis consists of arbitrary noise reduction and there’s obvious reproducibility issues because, well, we live on a tiny speck of the cosmos. Imagine if AMO guys had a single lab in the entire world and it was in the basement of some fat retard with dorito dust flying everywhere and polluting the experimental environment. That’s astrophysics for you.
2. There might as well be some gauge group with representations that are completely independent from the SM ones. That is, DM has its own complex interactions, but we can never observe them because our experimental apparatus isn’t built from DM. There’s nothing in Nature that forbids this.

>>16713550
Virtual particles are real mate; it's just that they're not really "particles" because they don't satisfy the criteria for being a particle, but whatever, they're energy excitations in quantum fields all the same and we can measure their effects. It's like arguing over whether or not viruses are "life", whatever, they exist and do biological shit anyway.

>>16713778
Show me where virtual particles show up aside from perturbation theory calculations. Do virtual electrons just pop out of nothing whenever we measure fine structure corrections to the hydrogen atom? They’re just corrections; you always measure the corrected value. Same thing with renormalization in perturbative QFT.

>>16713783
>where virtual particles show up
>Do virtual electrons just pop out
They're not really "particles" like I said, but yes, their effects are visible in the Casimir effect, plus electromagnetism pretty much needs virtual "photons" that aren't really photons to carry the force. They're basically just little vibrations in quantum fields so pathetically tiny that we sneer at them and go "lol, you're not a REAL particle", but for instance Hawking radiation predicts that these so-called "mathematical artifacts" literally tear black holes apart and produce real, lasting particles.

It's properly called Dark Metal. Dark Matter is a property of a surreal universe. It's part of the Hydro category. Hydro types include: Anti, Mini and more.

>>16713802
>their effects
No, it’s just you calculating things. Saying “something we can never observe effects things we do observe” is unscientific and equivalent to saying “tiny fairies are responsible for the Casimir effect”. The Casimir effect is caused by non-linear interactions of quantum fields with one another. That’s it.
>Hawking radiation predicts
Hawking radiation has nothing to do with perturbative QFT virtual particles. It’s just the same word being used for two different phenomena. Hawking radiation is the result of QFT having unitarily-inequivalent vacua in curved spacetime.

>>16713766
> 95% of data analysis consists of arbitrary noise reduction
That is complete bullshit. Not even sure what you're referring to.
>and there’s obvious reproducibility issues because
That's not reproducibility. By the same logic particle physics is unreproducible because it's only been measured on earth labs. This is silly, it's not about repeatability at all. You're saying the physics may be different elsewhere, and yet we see the same consistent DM effects as far as we can observe.

It is the best explanation we have right now for the speed of rotation of galaxies and the expansion of the universe.

Maybe our calculations for rotational speed, based purely on matter, fail to account for forces of momentum of matter introduced during galaxy formation prior to calculation.

Same for the dark energy explanation of the expansion of the universe. It could be that we are failing to account for the variable of motion before the calculated frame of reference.

>>16713934

We calculate the presumed rotational speed of galaxies based on matter, yet our calculations show a speed that is way too slow. Could it be that this matter was introduced during galaxy formation with a momentum that collectively increased its speed? It could be that we are simply calculating speed in the wrong way, as if all the matter was introduced "in-place" and began to rotate without prior motion.

>>16713937
No, because if the speed was higher than the orbital speed the particles would move out on larger orbits, or even escape completely.

>>16713937

For example, if a star is introduced into a galaxy, it likely has some sort of speed and momentum beforehand. If we calculate the rotational speed of a galaxy purely on matter in relation to gravity we are missing a huge piece of the calculation.

>>16713945
Not inherently higher than the orbital speed, but simply more than 0. Do these calculations account for the prior momentum of every single object in the galaxy?
>>16713948
This is what I mean.

>>16713950
>Not inherently higher than the orbital speed, but simply more than 0.
If it had zero speed it wouldn't rotate at all.
> it likely has some sort of speed and momentum beforehand.
The velocity of a particle determines its orbit. And they are always in equilibrium. If you give something some extra momentum then it just finds a new orbit, it is always in equilibrium.

>>16713955
I am talking about its prior historical speed before it entered the galaxy, and not of particles, but of objects like stars. I seriously doubt that our existing models to calculate the rotational speed of galaxies account for the prior momentum of every single object before it entered a galaxy. It may be that this "hidden gravitational force" is simply a failure to account for the prior momentum of every object in a galaxy. I think this is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why our calculations fall short and may even disprove the existence of dark matter entirely. I'm going to write an actual astrophysicist about it instead of arguing about it on 4chan.

>>16713905
Particle physics doesn't have something called the cosmological principle behind it. Seethe.

>>16713976
> I seriously doubt that our existing models to calculate the rotational speed of galaxies account for the prior momentum of every single object before it entered a galaxy.
The point I'm trying to make to you is that it doesn't matter. The initial velocity determines the orbit a particle takes. If one particle has slightly more energy that most, then it will have a larger orbital radius. But it will still orbit the galaxy according to standard dynamics. You seem to think that every object which enters the galaxy takes up a circular orbit with whatever speed it started with, not true.
>I am talking about its prior historical speed before it entered the galaxy, and not of particles, but of objects like stars.
Stars are particles in terms of dynamics. But also most of them for inside the galaxy. So their orbits is set by the star forming gas.
Note that in the Solar system the orbits of the planets are exactly as predicted by gravity. If what you say was true about initial velocities it would also mess up the Solar System. It doesn't.

>>16713978
Neither does astrophysics. You're thinking of cosmology, which is a subset. Note that the cosmological principle isn't always assumed to be true, there are alternative cosmologies people worked on which violate it to varying degrees. People have also tested the principle with real data, and as well as anyone can measure the data is consistent with homogeneity and isotropy.

>>16713998
Dark matter observations such as lensing are extragalactic. Even something like rotational speeds etc involves a ton of very non-linear behavior and assumptions, so my money is on the models being shit. Oh and don't forget how astro people have to mention le dark energy (the cosmological constant) alongside dark matter every single talk so their grant application looks important.

>>16714005
Lensing has nothing to do with dark matter, relativity or any other such fucking nonsense. Gravity bending light rays has been known about since the 1700s.

>>16714005
>Dark matter observations such as lensing are extragalactic.
And have nothing to do with the cosmological principle.

>>16714079
The cosmological principle states that the universe is rotationally and transitionary invariant. This obviously doesn’t hold on galactic scales since they have finite radius and total angular momentum in some direction. But it does apply to intergalactic scales. Now when you take measurements from a single point in space, you inadvertently break translation invariance. When a third of your view is obfuscated by the galactic plane, you break rotational invariance. We also have galactic clusters and all that which introduce very non-trivial inhomogeneity. All kinds of matter in the intergalactic voids blocks EM signals and astrolets make tons of assumptions on the nature of it. All this makes observations such as DM lensing shoddy at best; there are so many uncontrolled variables at play that the model might as well just be wrong.

>>16714097
>The cosmological principle states that the universe is rotationally and transitionary invariant.
...on large scales. No one is saying everything is isotropic and homogeneous, that is clearly false on human to galactic scales. The cosmological principle is not about these scales, nor does anyone try to use it as you suggest.
Also the cosmological principle is not a term in the equations used calculate rotation curves or lensing.

>>16714113
>Also the cosmological principle is not a term in the equations
The Poincare group.

>>16713542 (OP)
dark energy is the souls of the damned. got me what dark matter is. probably something gross.

>>16714312
Homogeneity is not assumed on these scales. There would be no lensing if the universe was homogeneous on these scales.

>>16714534
If I go really far away from something until it looks like a point in the horizon
then of course it is invariant because you have lost vision of all detail

what a fucking retarded observartion

>>16714547
That has nothing to do with the cosmological principle. The only time it is ever invoked is when deriving cosmological models. It has nothing to do with observations, lensing or rotation curves.

>>16714553
sry mwant to reply to >>16714113
carry on autist

IT IS UHHH VERY DARK AND AHHHHHHHHHHH

>>16713766
>That is, DM has its own complex interactions, but we can never observe them because our experimental apparatus isn’t built from DM
Perhaps all of this can be reduced to some uncomfortable truth: humans are limited beings with limited senses and limited brains. Perhaps life on Earth evolved to interact with Standard Matter only and our senses are only capable of perceiving it, not Dark Matter. Our brains are also evolved only to the point of understanding SM, but we can't simply comprehend the existence of DM using our own mental and biological mechanisms.
That's why all of our models and experimental apparatus and technological instruments were made for SM only and we simply cant wrap our heads around DM, just like worms can't wrap their heads around simple math or fishes can't wrap their heads around the concept of water, despite being surrounded by it.

>>16713542 (OP)
One possibility: oddspace and odd matter.
That is to say, matter (with mass) which is imperceptible and exists in different dimensions than which we are accustomed (or able) to see, yet effects (pardon my terminology) "lower" dimensions.
So, the fundamental hypothesis behind dark matter may be true. But without speculating on higher dimensions this extra mass has no known mechanism for why it exists.

>>16713542 (OP)
Like dark energy and 99% of quantum mechanics, it's just woo invented to fill spaces in theories so they appear "correct".

>>16715448
It’s not about comprehension, /x/tard. It’s physical interactions. Dark matter may not be charged under any Standard Model interactions just like leptons aren’t charged under the strong force.

>>16713542 (OP)

test

My understanding, and it has ben brought up here already to an extent, is that dark matter or energy is the stuff in between planets and galaxies moving it all around

>>16715703
>It’s not about comprehension, /x/tard
Everything is about comprehension, retard. You people would benefit greatly from actually reading anything about epistemology instead of abstracting everything into mathematical formulas (which are constantly being proven wrong, btw).

By the way, I'm not an /x/tard, you are the ones who literally came up with invisible space magic particles because you can't make your equations work properly.
I'm just suggesting that you should perhaps stop chasing your own tail and start to think outside your own model, because it's clearly incomplete and your whole field is constantly getting dunked by real life.

>>16715988
>think outside your own model
Oh wow, thanks. That really narrows it down.

>>16715988
You completely misinterpreted my statement
>dark matter may elude direct observation because it simply doesn’t interact with regular matter via gauge interactions, rather other via gravity
into some dude weed statement about
>WOAH what if like dark matter is this Lovecraftian chthonic thing that we cannot even begin to comprehend. Really makes you think about epistemology or something.
genuinely kys

>>16716280
*rather only via gravity

>>16716280
>You completely misinterpreted my statement
And you misinterpreted mine for the second time, because you are neck deep into this circular evidence of yours.
>dark matter may elude direct observation because it simply doesn’t interact with regular matter via gauge interactions, rather other via gravity
That's my whole fucking point. But you are retarded enough to never think of the possibility of all of the current experimental apparatus being biased towards a very narrow window of possible interactions, mostly because it's biased towards our empirically reachable reality, something that Dark Matter is not a part of.
>into some dude weed statement
If you think basic epistemological doubt is "dude weed" stuff you sincerely ngmi as a researcher on any area. It's scientific philosophy 101, and if you can't grasp it you are just a very shallow and mediocre scientist.
That actually explains a lot about the current state of Dark Matter research...

But what can I do about it, huh? Keep wasting another 60 years of your careers on trying to find anything at all. It's not me who is the butt of the joke of the scientific community anyways.

>>16716303
I never said my argument was supported by evidence. I said it’s my own two cents on what’s going on with terrestrial experiments returning null results. There are actual cosmological and particle-theoretic bounds to how feeble a potential force between regular and dark matter can be. And current experiments have pretty much ruled out WIMPs by that very reason. So two explanations remain: either astrophysical models are wrong or dark matter isn’t gauged under any Standard Model group and conversely regular matter isn’t gauged under any “dark” gauge group. There are no other possibilities because quantum field theory is an extremely rigid and one cannot just think something up out of thin air. You are out of your area of expertise, but you continue stubbornly trying to show how le smart you are. Sad.

The Blowtorch Theory is vastly superior to the current hodgepodge model and evidence will prove it correct. Completely solves the need for dark matter and energy without even trying.
https://theeggandtherock.com/p/the-blowtorch-theory-a-new-model

The universal principle of natural selection driving evolved complexity explains all that is, not merely the emergence of the biological automata we myopically refer to as life. The universe is life. You know I'm right.

>>16716315
>So two explanations remain: either astrophysical models are wrong or dark matter isn’t gauged under any Standard Model group and conversely regular matter isn’t gauged under any “dark” gauge group
But that's exactly what I tried to say, I just added the hypothesis that the models could be wrong because of empirical bias, since our very body seems to perceive and interact with regular matter only. It's like trying to ask someone blind to find for the color green. He doesn't know where to even begin. It's no wonder why you can't find answers using our current models.
I wasn't even trying to discuss with you, i largely agree with your ideas, but you chimped out because I suggested something more unorthodox. I guess big philosophical words are too scary for the poor STEMtard.
>You are out of your area of expertise
Well, it seems like I know the same amount about Dark Matter as you: nothing. As you people have been searching for 60 years and still couldn't reach anything concrete.
It's like saying you are expert on fairies. It's not a very impressive field of expertise if you ask me.

>>16716320
Why don't you post one of the galaxy rotation curve fits based on this blowtorch model? Or how about calculating the fluctuations of the CMB in this model? Should be easy, if the model really does solve the problems of DM.

>>16716324
>I suggested something more unorthodox.
Lel. You have suggested literally nothing. You cannot suggest a particular direction of a new model. You also don't offer any observational evidence or experimentation which could falsify current models. So you have nothing of scientific substance. You have a philosophy major opinion about a field you obviously know little about.