←back to thread

34 points rbanffy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
resource0x ◴[] No.43737088[source]
Dark matter is a pseudo-scientific variant of the "God of the gaps". Rather of acknowledging an obvious (default) assumption that the laws of Universe (including all "constants") depend on local conditions, the community prefers spending inordinate amounts of money on nebulous ideas.
replies(1): >>43737143 #
vihren ◴[] No.43737143[source]
We do have a pretty substansive evidence that dark matter exists: from the cosmic background radiation, gravitational lensing, galaxy formation simulations, galaxy rotation curves, etc.

Why is it so hard for people to believe that there are some particles that are not interacting with electromagnetism that we haven't detected directly yet? It's not even a precedent, the neutrino is just like that.

I guess the name "dark" matter was a mistake because it implies something weird, when in fact it just means whatever this is, doesn't have electric (or chromo) charge.

replies(3): >>43737317 #>>43737768 #>>43737942 #
dventimi ◴[] No.43737317[source]
I agree with you. "Dark Matter" (and "Dark Energy") are colorful (colorless?) names that I think helped these theories diffuse into the popular consciousness at a time when popular interest in science was at a high-water mark (remember when "chaos theory" was fashionable?). As I mentioned in another comment recently (it feels like a "Dark Matter" or "Dark Energy" headline trends on HN almost every day), this coded these theories as "exotic" or "weird" as you say, and invited speculation about Dark Matter and even an urge to overturn it among laypeople who equated "exotic" with "tendentious." But, as you suggest, personally I don't regard Dark Matter as all that exotic. We already know about some species of "dark matter": the neutrino is one, and before that there was the neutron. Oh, well. I suppose there will be another episode on HN in a day or so.
replies(1): >>43737597 #
notfed ◴[] No.43737597[source]
Had we named it "invisible matter", perhaps not as much controversy would surround it.
replies(1): >>43738403 #
mr_mitm ◴[] No.43738403[source]
The controversy exists only in laypeople cirlces to be honest. Consesus among actual scientists is pretty firm.
replies(1): >>43738769 #
1. dventimi ◴[] No.43738769[source]
Yeah, but it might've tamped down any perceived controversy even among laypeople, which would've saved many priceless electrons being spent debating the issue on the internet.