Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Cast Doubt On the Big Bang?

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the hey-man-it's-just-a-theory dept.

Space 225

StartsWithABang (3485481) writes "Back in the 1960s, after the discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background, the Big Bang reigned supreme as the only game in town. But back then, we also assumed that what we consider as "normal matter" — i.e., protons, neutrons and electrons — was, along with photons and neutrinos, the only stuff that made up the Universe. But the last 50 years have shown us that dark matter and dark energy actually make up 95% of the energy composition of our cosmos. Given that, is there any wiggle room to possibly invalidate the Big Bang?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

the universe (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640917)

is made of darkie matter shat out of bama's anus six years ago. Time before bama is a myth.

Oh good lord. (4, Informative)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 2 months ago | (#47640925)

There's always the possibility of a theory being falsified but in this case the answer is almost certainly no.

The big bang is not going to be invalidated, so say COBE, WMAP and PLANCK.

Also, it's actually less than 5% baryonic matter it seems, 4.4%

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/unive... [nasa.gov]

Be aware that dark matter is just matter we can't directly detect with our current technology (or just haven't /yet/), it's not something magical.

Re:Oh good lord. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640935)

Magical matter makes me think faster than light! and I can taste the colorsssss

Re: Oh good lord. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641143)

Suck my cock gay boy

Re: Oh good lord. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641615)

eat a dick like a hot dog, covered in mustard! oh baby

makes me wet thinking about it.

Oh good lord. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640963)

Well, the fact that we can still hear the universe ringing at the exact range and frequency curve predicted by George Gamow nearly twenty years before Wilson and Penzias "discovered" it (see the cosmic background radiation - look it up), I'd say no.
Also, the farther out we look, the faster galaxies are moving away from us. Run that backwards in time and we're all in the same place about 13.7 billion years ago. Again, I'd say no.
Also, the balance of H, He and Li that was predicted...
Also, the evolution and make-up of stars and proportions of heavy elements in near and far galaxies...
Etc. etc.

Re:Oh good lord. (-1, Troll)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47642499)

Sigh, when you make theories to fit your observations, of course they match.

Doesn't make them any more correct.

And no, if you run that backwards it doesn't work out that its all in the same place.

Re:Oh good lord. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642629)

Re: "when you make theories to fit your observations, of course they match."

Slashdotters appear to generally not realize that scientists simply decide what anomalies to focus the public's attention on. Notice that this article never mentions any uncertainties associated with these ideas, nor areas where potential mistakes might exist within these conventional theories. Why even broach this subject if you're not at all willing to give the critics some airtime to make their case?

The people who run this site do not have a pulse on how to push science forward beyond these obstacles. The science articles which are promoted on Slashdot exclude any discussion of mistakes within our theories, and for this reason, this aggregator will not generate thought leaders who can help us to resolve the most perplexing issues in astrophysics & cosmology today. Sometimes, in science, cosmetic ad hoc tweaks will not get us from A to B. This is the case with dark matter & energy; they are of that rare class of problems in science where we must revisit the initial hypothesis. And this is ultimately the reason why, after decades of investigation, they remain with us. The ideas which will take us to the next step are generally quite divergent from established wisdom -- which means that they fall into the category of "mistakes in science". And that absolutely guarantees that they will not survive moderation on Slashdot, which exhibits the behavior of a rabid fanboy when it comes to science. We need critics in science. But the Slashdot moderators seem more concerned with convincing us that science is awesome (click harvesting), than actually moving science forward.

Re:Oh good lord. (2)

The Raven (30575) | about 2 months ago | (#47642593)

I thought that we had too much Lithium to match the prediction, that observed amounts exceeded predicted ratios.

Re:Oh good lord. (5, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | about 2 months ago | (#47640965)

And maybe dark matter isn't at all, but just a matter (bad pun, I know) of our misunderstanding of something.

Take the planet Vulcan [wikipedia.org] . No, not THAT Vulcan. But also a fictional one. Astronomers noticed Mercury isn't circling the Sun as it should, so something had to account for this. In their understanding back then, there had to be another planet that causes that. But then uncle Albert came along and explained it with relativity and now we know that gravity is the culprit, not some planet we can't see.

What if this is a similar case? Like, say, (normal) matter having gravity properties that only become noticeable on a cosmic scale? Like, say, relativistic effects that take a DAMN LOT of gravity to become noticeable?

I'm not saying it is so, I just wonder if we're dead set on Dark Matter or whether we're actually still looking in other directions? Or rather, whether serious scientists actually look into different options aside of Dark Matter to explain the discrepancies, not just crackpots and snakeoil peddlers.

Re:Oh good lord. (2, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#47641045)

Dark matter is probably just civilizations that have built (advanced forms of) Dyson spheres around their stars.
This also explains the Fermi paradox.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641075)

A cool theory, but no.
The last image at this link pretty much shows that whatever dark matter is - it doesn't interact with normal matter.
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/

This rules out dust clouds, black holes, Dyson spheres, Neutrinos, and pretty much anything else we know about in our existence so far.

We have a lot to learn.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641123)

Actually, neutrinos do account for dark matter, it's just that there aren't enough of them. They are also hot, or at least warm (as in energetic), and the cold dark matter component, which has been observed to be very significant, remains unexplained by them. Which is why we'd like to have non-baryonic fairly massive (so relatively cold) particles. Dark matter is anything that doesn't interact with regular matter via the strong or gravitational interactions. Neutrinos don't.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641129)

Ugh, what I meant to say was obviously 'Dark matter is anything that doesn't interact with regular matter via *other* interactions than the strong or gravitational ones.' So the exact opposite, sorry.

Re:Oh good lady, and lord. (5, Insightful)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 2 months ago | (#47641765)

we'd like to have non-baryonic fairly massive (so relatively cold) particles. Dark matter is anything that doesn't interact with regular matter via the strong or gravitational interactions. Neutrinos don't.

More and more I'm getting a feeling that science has been down this road before. That our understanding of subatomic particles and the distant edges of the Universe is similar to the pre-Copernican use of epicycles to understand astronomy. That the search for dark matter (and probably string theory too) is a search for that final missing epicycle that will make the model work just right.

I think we need to look for a Galileo or Copernicus who has some whacky, undeveloped alternate concept that if only we could change our point of view, we would see that it makes everything so much more clear.

Re:Oh good lady, and lord. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642663)

Re: "I think we need to look for a Galileo or Copernicus who has some whacky, undeveloped alternate concept that if only we could change our point of view, we would see that it makes everything so much more clear."

Yes, you are right, and it's called the Electric Universe -- which is simply the application of laboratory plasma physics models to cosmic plasmas. What people seem to not be aware is that there is extreme divergence between the Big Bang / MHD version of plasmas, and those plasmas we use every day to light up fluorescent lights. Is it simply a coincidence that fixing these models so that they can conduct electrical currents, hold electric fields, exhibit some minute electrical resistance & have electrodynamic magnetic fields also resolves the dark matter problem?

Re: Oh good lord. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641545)

Simple question from an amateur: Could dark matter be some kind of waste product produced by atomic interactions of some kind?

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 months ago | (#47642727)

It most certainly does not rule out dyson spheres. Any civilization advanced enough to build a dyson sphere would likely be able to build them in a way that we would have a hard time detecting them. I'm not saying aliens are responsible for dark matter, but it definitely isn't evidence against.

Besides, interaction with normal matter is the ONLY way that we identify dark matter. So says CERN [web.cern.ch] .

Re:Oh good lord. (4, Insightful)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 2 months ago | (#47641367)

Dark matter is probably just civilizations that have built (advanced forms of) Dyson spheres around their stars.
This also explains the Fermi paradox.

Dyson spheres would glow in the infrared and therefore be pretty obvious. This is because they still have to radiate the heat produced by the star they enclose - otherwise their internal temperature would perpetually increase.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641661)

Why would they specifically glow in the infrared?
I know that the infrared spectrum glow for dyson spheres is popular in science fiction literature, but I never understood the fixation on that particular part of the em spectrum. Why not something colder, like microwave radiation? The cosmic background radiation is within the microwave spectrum. And there's plenty of other low energy frequencies in the entire em spectrum, radio comes to mind.

At least in theory, if the barrier holds back all particle radiation, which includes neutrinos, it may only appear as an odd hot spot in the background radiation, that also has some gravitational energy.

Re:Oh good lord. (2)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 months ago | (#47642431)

Why would they specifically glow in the infrared?
I know that the infrared spectrum glow for dyson spheres is popular in science fiction literature, but I never understood the fixation on that particular part of the em spectrum. Why not something colder, like microwave radiation?

That's an interesting theory. At the moment, we don't really have means to extract additional energy from waste heat, so it ultimately radiates off as infrared. But if we're seriously considering building a Dyson sphere, one supposes we've already exhausted every possible efficiency we can come up with, including reducing infrared wavelength all the way down to microwave wavelength, squeezing every last possible watt out of it.

It doesn't seem likely. Black body radiation at room temperature and cooler is almost entirely in the infrared. It's the part of the spectrum to which heat converts most readily at lower temperatures. Efforts to convert that infrared back into something useful have been covered on Slashdot. It's apparently possible. But the result is still infrared, coming off the back of the converter. Just less of it. One supposes it has something to do with the fundamental nature of macroscopic matter.

Is there a physicist in the house?

microwave bright [Re:Oh good lord.] (3, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 2 months ago | (#47642631)

well, if Dyson spheres are anywhere near the size of the solar system, they would radiate in the infrared. Longer infrared the larger they are.

You could imagine a Dyson sphere that is vastly larger than a solar system -- like, a hundred AU across, or so--that would radiate waste heat in millimeter wave, or even something vastly larger than that that would radiate in microwave.

But, of course, that doesn't solve the problem-- they would be shine like beacons to radio telescopes.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

StripedCow (776465) | about 2 months ago | (#47641701)

Hence I said "advanced forms of Dyson spheres".

Re:Oh good lord. (-1)

BitZtream (692029) | about 2 months ago | (#47642509)

I properly built dyson sphere, one that actually captured ALL the energy output, would emit no radiation. Thats kind of the definition of a dyson sphere.

Heat is a waste product, efficient energy use doesn't necessitate heat.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641109)

This has certainly been considered (and still is to some extent, I've read at least a few papers published this year and this isn't something I'm especially interested in), it's just that building such a theory that would account for all the observed effects seems to be difficult, and it's provable that a fairly general class of theories of modified general relativity is equivalent to general relativity with different matter content. Since this is the case, it doesn't really make too much sense to differentiate between the two, and the existence of dark matter is generally considered the more natural of the two options (in comparison to your example of Vulcan, there have been a large number cases where particles speculated due to similar reasons HAVE been found), so that's what people are sticking with.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 months ago | (#47641233)

The alternative to dark matter is the hubris of thinking we can see absolutely everything. Journalists may be in that space but it doesn't seem that astronomers are.
Analogy: you are in a dark room full of people with sparklers, but you know there are some without them because somebody without one just stood on your foot.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47641295)

We have no idea what gravity.is, only how it behaves, same deal with dark matter. Perhaps there's no matter in dark matter, perhaps we are seeing a naked gravitational field. Technically all we are observing is a gravitational field, the "matter" itself has never been observed we just assume that all gravitational fields require some sort of matter to bend space, nature is under no obligation to comply to our rules, perhaps space is capable of bending by itself via local fluctuations in the expansion rate.

Re:Oh good lord. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641555)

This guy has a very good video showing why we don't need the big bang or dark matter/energy to explain the state of "known" universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw

Re: Oh good lord. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641625)

I strongly suspect you are correct. Dark energy and dark matter are probably observational artifacts of normal matter at large scales...

The Bullet Cluster Makes it Unlikely (4, Informative)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 months ago | (#47641925)

What if this is a similar case? Like, say, (normal) matter having gravity properties that only become noticeable on a cosmic scale?

Models like this have been considered such as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). These models were largely shot down by the aptly named Bullet Cluster [wikipedia.org] . This is a system of two galaxies colliding at a high relative speed. The gas from the smaller "bullet" cluster collides with the gas in the larger cluster causing it to slow down, heat up and emit X-rays so we can see it.

So far so go. However you can also look at the mass distribution by seeing how it distorts the light from galaxies behind the cluster (this is called gravitational lensing). This shows that most of the mass of the smaller cluster has not slowed down and is now separated from where all the gas in the cluster is located. Effectively the collision has separated the matter from the dark matter because, unlike normal matter, dark matter has a tiny cross-section for interacting with itself or other matter. This is exceedingly hard to explain by modifying the behaviour of normal matter since you are observing a gravitational field where there is no normal matter.

Re:The Bullet Cluster Makes it Unlikely (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642701)

Re: "Models like this have been considered such as MOND (MOdified Newtonian Dynamics). These models were largely shot down by the aptly named Bullet Cluster"

Have you considered that there is more than one possible interpretation for the Bullet Cluster?

Oh good lord. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641037)

We're finding it quite easy to directly detect its affects with our current technology - it's called a telescope. We just have no clue as to what it is or how it works.
I'd like to point out that gravity is in the same category. Also time.
We do know a lot more about light and electricity. Please check out "QED" by Richard Feynman. Well we actually don't know how that works ether, but we've figured out the math to make very precise predictions that usually match reality so we must be on the right track.

Re:Oh good lord. (1, Interesting)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47641311)

Please check out "QED" by Richard Feynman. Well we actually don't know how that works ether, but we've figured out the math to make very precise predictions that usually match reality so we must be on the right track.

Indeed, QED is the most successful theory that man has ever formulated, and Feynman was IMHO far greater than Einstein or Hawking.

When the first shuttle blew up, NASA picked up the phone and called Feynman, someone that never did anything for NASA before and was not involved in any way with the shuttles, rockets, or even anything astronomy. Feynman figured out what happened quite quickly, went before congress and both explained and demonstrated the problem.

Einstein has a brilliant idea. Hawking had a brilliant idea. Feynman was simply raw brilliance.

Re:Oh good lord. (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 months ago | (#47642031)

Indeed, QED is the most successful theory that man has ever formulated

No, actually that would be special relativity which has been tested to around 20+ orders of magnitude by cosmic rays [arxiv.org] as well as (arguably) tests of CPT symmetry [wikipedia.org] which last time I checked (quite a while ago) was at about 18 orders of magnitude.

QED is 'only' at about 12-14 order of magnitude of accuracy (which is extremely impressive!). Indeed since QED incorporates Special Relativity it would be hard for it to be tested more accurately that SR since any test of QED is, by definition, a test of SR as well.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 months ago | (#47642323)

QED is 'only' at about 12-14 order of magnitude of accuracy

Irrelevant to weather it is a success or not. You seem to think that success means 'measured to within a certain accuracy' --- no sir, success means that explained many things, predicted many more things, and knowing it is required to be on the cutting edge of just about everything technological today.

Relativity doesnt hold a handle to that. Not even close. Aside from GPS satellites, how has our understanding of relatively improved your life? It hasn't. QED has in so many ways that those ways arent even practically enumerable any longer.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

Opyros (1153335) | about 2 months ago | (#47642619)

Then what about Tomonaga and Schwinger; were they also greater than Einstein?

Re: Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641815)

Nope

Re:Oh good lord. (5, Interesting)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 months ago | (#47641829)

We just have no clue as to what it is or how it works.

I'd like to point out that gravity is in the same category. Also time.

This.

When Newton was first discussing his theories of universal gravitation, the scientific community was rather skeptical, because it invoked spooky "unseen forces" acting at a distance (i.e., gravity). The previous Aristotelean model of physics asserted that "normal" terrestrial matter came to a nature place of rest (earth sinks down to equilibrium, air rises to equilibrium, etc.), since Newton's first law hadn't been realized yet. Instead, real-world friction, etc. tends to bring things to a state of rest, which accords with everyday experience. All motion had to be explained by a "cause," something that propelled it into motion, and ultimately the matter would stop moving once it came to its natural state of rest.

The motion of the planets could not be explained using this physics, so the celestial bodies were assumed to be of a different type of aetherial matter (or something) which was set in motion at the beginning of time or something.

That was the proper scientific theory of the day, and it accorded with empirical observation and common sense -- terrestrial bodies stopped, celestial ones seemed to go in continuous motion forever.

But Newton came along and equated the two -- and he developed a mathematics that described the motion. Unfortunately it depended on a "spooky" occult idea of forces acting at a distance. (Newton, of course, was really into the occult, alchemy, etc.)

So, scientists of the day were skeptical. Newton eventually even published an appendix with future editions of the Principia explaining that his model didn't depend on "real" unseen forces acting -- instead, he basically came up with the modern scientific ideal that says: if the math works and predicts the phenomena, that's enough for science. A scientific model need not be concerned with philosophical questions or ultimate causes of phenomena as long as it can actually make good predictions.

THAT, probably more than anything else, was the foundation of modern "science" laid down by Newton during the Scientific Revolution. People had been doing experiments and empirical investigations for millennia, but they always had to worry about ultimate "causes," which inevitably depended on somebody's pet theory of reality. After Newton, though, what matters is that the math works. Maybe the dark matter/dark energy model is hinting at some deeper aspect of reality and a more elegant theory that we will come up with many years from now... or not. But regardless, these ideas are exactly like Newton's "gravity" -- something which we observe, something we can have an accurate mathematical model of, but also something "spooky" that we don't understand completely yet.

That's what the modern scientific process is all about.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

gargleblast (683147) | about 2 months ago | (#47641197)

Correctamundo. Given that the best theory of cosmology yet devised, the Lambda-CDM model [wikipedia.org] , is a Big Bang theory that includes dark matter and dark energy, I would ... defer to Ian Betteridge's [wikipedia.org] opinion on the matter.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 months ago | (#47641479)

Dark matter is the foam noodles and other packaging material that the universe was transported in. It now lies in a skip at the back.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641537)

Not magical? Matter that I can't see and can't interact with? Can you imagine if someone made a drone out of that? A perfect spy device. Nobody can see it, hear it, or knock it down. In fact, I may have one hovering over you right now...

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641539)

And that is what is so sad about science...nothing is magical.

Re:Oh good lord. (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 2 months ago | (#47641693)

And that is what is so sad about science...nothing is magical.

http://xkcd.com/877/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642471)

> And that is what is so sad about science...nothing is magical.

What's sad is people who believe in magic after age 5.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

bricko (1052210) | about 2 months ago | (#47641909)

Absolutely NOT....remember all "settled science" is not a topic for continued investigation. Are you going to become a "Bang Denier", you will be ostracized and Slashdot will not publish any questioning ideas. Just like "Climate Change" , it is "settled" and no further investigation is to be done.

Re:Oh good lord. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642523)

Dark matter may not be anything we'd consider "real"; perhaps it's all just virtual particles...

For example, EM fields are filtered by virtual particles, a negative charge would appear slightly weaker than inverse square law predicts because there are virtual electrons that orient themselves in such a way that reduces the charge.

Gravity will also have virtual particles (gravitons?), but being always attractive actually makes the gravity force bigger than inverse square law---virtual particles will cause *more* gravity and *more* virtual particles---perhaps that's what multiplies gravitation 20x or so for it to appear like matter is wrapped / orbited by "dark matter that nobody can see except for gravitational affects".

Perhaps Dark Energy (which I think has more to do with entropy confined within a volume) is the only thing stopping the above described gravity multiplication :-)

Electric Universe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640927)

I believe that there is some wiggle room, looking at the electric universe theory.

Electric Universe (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641021)

I would say quite the opposite - that the existence of dark mater and dark energy suggests a possible mechanism for the initial rapid expansion (inflation) without resorting to "magic" forces we have not yet observed.
The electric universe or ionized plasma theory looks great on paper, but the cosmic scale currents and magnetic fields it describes would create easily detectable phenomena which are not actually observed.

I've personally observed a number of Christian astronomers cite "The Big Bang Never Happened", as possible testimony that the universe isn't 13.8 billion years old after all. Having actually read the book I enjoy pointing out that Eric Lerner's conclusion about the age of the universe being 150 billions of years old is completely out of wack with actual observations, and cherry picking parts of scientific ideas doesn't work the same way as cherry picking passages of other books. If your theory predicts things that don't match reality - throw it away and try again. Read up on dating quasars using spin decay rates if you really want to know.

Your official guide to the Jigaboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640937)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

We LOVE it when you question things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640947)

...that you clearly don't possibly understand!

Slashdot on weekends allows a lot of crap.

T

Re:We LOVE it when you question things.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641003)

Sure but is it intangible dark crap?

Don't ask me (5, Insightful)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47640951)

Do Dark Matter and Dark Energy Cast Doubt On the Big Bang?

I have no idea! You should probably ask a physicist.

Re:Don't ask me (5, Funny)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 2 months ago | (#47641063)

The physicists are the ones asking. We better take this one to the Big Guy Himself.

"So, uh, we were wondering if you could explain why our orbital and rotational predictions for galaxies are not matching our astronomical measurements?"

"They aren't? Are you sure? Let me check the source code. Oh, that's not good. Should have caught that a few billion years ago. This is going to be a real pain to patch. Unless. . . ."

"Unless, what?"

*lightning bolt strikes questioner*

Re:Don't ask me (1)

jd (1658) | about 2 months ago | (#47641267)

Given that physicists are seriously studying whether the universe is a computer simulation, that joke might not be too far from the truth. You have been warned.

Re:Don't ask me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641357)

I'm already counting the days until Big Religion adopts the idea of the Simulation Theory and claims that God is the system builder, programmer and admin that knows all the cheat-codes.

While the idea of this theory is sound, this is more something like meta-physics instead of real physics.

Re:Don't ask me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641573)

all explained here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw

Re:Don't ask me (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 months ago | (#47642053)

I have no idea! You should probably ask a physicist.

You called? The answer is no and we were not really asking this question ourselves since the one of the major pieces of evidence for Dark Matter (PLANCK CMB measurement) relies on Big Bang models!

Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47640975)

If a headline ends in a question mark the answer is always no. If the answer was yes they wouldn't ask, they'd tell.. The question mark is how shitty opinion pieces trying to push a view point try to masquerade as news.

Re:Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 months ago | (#47641167)

If a headline ends in a question mark the answer is always no. If the answer was yes they wouldn't ask, they'd tell.. The question mark is how shitty opinion pieces trying to push a view point try to masquerade as news.

Everything from medium.com is of low quality. They take some nice pictures, put them inline with some artsy text and then say absolutely nothing for several paragraphs. Every article I've read on there has been some made up controversy. "Does dark mater invalidate the big bang?" then 10 paragraphs later "No, not at all" So why exactly did you write this article?

Re:Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641891)

So why exactly did you write this article?

Because the article is written in response to a reader's question?

Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641565)

If a headline ends in a question mark the answer is always no.

Should we still put stock in the Big Bang?

Re:Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (1)

Jiro (131519) | about 2 months ago | (#47641971)

Should we still put stock in the Big Bang?

Betteridge's Law applies to actual headlines, not to sentences which people write up trying to sound like headlines that no article is really using.

Re:Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641613)

IS 2+2 REALLY 4?

Re:Low Quality Article, Uses Question Mark. (1)

Will.Woodhull (1038600) | about 2 months ago | (#47641895)

IS 2+2 REALLY 4?

Well, the concept of "two", or "twoness" is imaginary. It has no physical, chemical, astronomical, or any other scientific qualities. So it is outside the set of things that are "real". "Twoness" only exists in your head; it is at best an artifact of your perception of reality. But such artifacts are not real in themselves.

There is no reason to believe that doubling something that is not real will make it real. That would not be logical. (Invoking the Spock argument.)

Thus "2+2" does not "REALLY" equal "4" in any place other than in your head.

That you can use the totally imaginative structures of "language" to construct a pattern of sounds or pixels that evokes in someone else an imaginary statement of "2+2=4" is something to wonder about, but again no part of that process has any real component. It is all imagination. Highly discipiined imagination in some cases, such as QED, but still just imagination. Not real in any meaningful sense of reality.

Dark matter (1, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47641009)

As stated below by others, just because it's "dark" doesn't mean it's not just ordinary matter.

It's just that we can't actually see it.

Given the twists and turns of galaxy-sized gravitational pulls, it's hardly surprising that there's stuff out there that we can't directly or indirectly observe (but that we believe has to be out there for other things to look like they do).

The only reason that something is "dark" is because we think it should be there but can't actually find it. Having 95% dark matter/energy just means that we know LESS about the universe than we did before - which is not at all unusual when you've just passed a cusp of understanding.

When we "knew" everything was atoms, we thought we had 100% knowledge. When we split the atom, we then realised that we knew only 1% of what was happening. Then we caught up again to something approaching 100% "understanding". And hit a wall. When we scale that wall, our "understanding" will drop dramatically.

That's what's happened with dark energy/dark matter. Think of it as our ignorance quotient increasing because of the discovery of new evidence. Not as some vast debunking of existing science - that's like saying "atoms don't exist" and abandoning all the working atomic science we already have just because we find out that the atom isn't the complete story, or abandoning all Newtonian physics because of the discovery of quantum physics.

It just doesn't work like that. The best bit of dark matter science is ahead of us. We're in ignorance, looking for the light. Or, in this case, the dark.

Re:Dark matter (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47641173)

As stated below by others, just because it's "dark" doesn't mean it's not just ordinary matter. It's just that we can't actually see it.

Repeating the ignorant doesn't make it true, that "dark matter" is simply ordinary matter we couldn't detect was a good first guess. Very strong evidence indicate it's not [wikipedia.org] because that would create other interactions as well that aren't there. There's some small fraction that is regular matter [wikipedia.org] and some is neutrinos, but without some other form of particles it just doesn't add up.

Re:Dark matter (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#47642239)

We measure and effect and we call that dark matter because it exhibits gravitational effects but we really have no idea what it is or what's causing it. It could be super strings or worm holes or even singularities far from other matter.

This is the problem I have with the entire speculation about Dark Matter, we have no idea what it is. People spend a lot of time talking about it like we know what it is and what it means and all that and it could be nothing more than isolated gravitational anomalies like super strings in interstellar space that we've located. We need a better understanding of how prevalent these effects are and a lot more data about the entire phenomenon before we start theorizing about what's the cause.

Isn't it the other way around? (3, Interesting)

dottrap (1897528) | about 2 months ago | (#47641013)

I thought Dark Matter was conceived to account for missing matter that the Big Bang theory predicts needs to exist.

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641043)

Yeah that's exactly what it is and why this whole article is retarded. If it wasn't for the Big Bang Theory we wouldn't be looking for this missing Dark Matter / Dark Energy in the first place, because it's a prediction based ON that theory.

It's purely theoretical since we *have not observed it*. Not finding it would put a bigger dent in the Big Bang Theory, since that's the only reason we're looking for it in the first place. It's almost eye-rollingly inane, the idea that finding something predicted by a certain theory invalidates the theory.

Isn't it the other way around? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641053)

I thought Dark Matter was conceived to account for missing matter that the Big Bang theory predicts needs to exist.

No, it (mostly) came about when it was noticed that galaxies required a lot more mass than was visiible to keep from flying apart. The speeds of stars 'orbiting' was too high, and the things should have flown off. There were other oddities observed as well. All the behaviors observed could be explained if there was a lot more gravitational mass than what could be seen. Some of things seen were quite bizarre, too, and required the stuff to account for things acting the way they did.

Enter Dark Matter as a formal theory..

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (4, Informative)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47641305)

I thought Dark Matter was conceived to account for missing matter that the Big Bang theory predicts needs to exist.

No, it (mostly) came about when it was noticed that galaxies required a lot more mass than was visiible

It's both, and other observations as well. That's why dark matter is a good theory for the observations we have at this time - several phenomena all point to the same explanation.

Isn't it the other way around? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641061)

No, dark matter was called up to explain why galaxies are spinning up to twenty times faster than they should, and that they spin more like a rotating platter then the water in a drain.
If it was just that - galaxies are spinning too fast - it's conceivable that there might be another force at play. However - there's now extremely strong evidence thanks to observations of colliding galaxies and gravitational lensing that it is indeed gravity, and whatever this dark mater is - it doesn't interact with normal mater.

Dark energy is the creepy one. A force that seems to only act on the large spaces between galaxies and pushes them apart faster and faster. As the cosmos continues to expand at an ever increasing rate, will dark energy become strong enough to pull all matter apart - nobody knows!

Sleep well!

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641121)

A force that seems to only act on the large spaces between galaxies and pushes them apart faster and faster. As the cosmos continues to expand at an ever increasing rate, will dark energy become strong enough to pull all matter apart

Like anti-gravity.

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (2)

sir-gold (949031) | about 2 months ago | (#47641669)

It's not necessarily a new form of energy.

It's possible that there is a 5th force that we don't know about, different from the 4 forces that we already know about (gravity, magnetism, strong force and weak force.)

It could be a very weak force with an extremely long range that only manifests when the other 4 forces are beyond their effective ranges.

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641141)

There are at least two forms of evidence for dark matter. There is the expansion rate of the universe, as you mentioned. There is also the rotation rate of galaxies and gravitational lensing, which is a different matter.

Re:Isn't it the other way around? (1)

Livius (318358) | about 2 months ago | (#47641297)

The big bang theory is the part we're confident about. There are observations that imply there are other phenomena happening, and dark matter and dark energy are, so far, the best theories to account for them, but they don't "cast doubt" on big bang cosmology - at best they're likely to lead to minor adjustments.

Now, if something totally new comes along, then we could have a revolution in our thinking and need to come up with a new theory, such as when Aristotle's thinking was replaced with the Galileo/Newton model, and then replaced with Einstein's general relativity, and it could be something new about dark matter and/or dark energy that motivates that revolution, but that something new isn't here yet.

On the contrary (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641051)

It's quite the opposite. You need dark matter and dark energy in order to explain the CMB and the distribution of matter in the Universe. Dark matter and dark energy fit perfectly in the theory, that's the main reason why the alternatives to dark energy/matter that have been proposed were rejected: they fail to explain the CMB and the distribution of matter, while the dark matter and energy explain it perfectly.

Of course it's "perfect" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641209)

The equation goes something like this:

(Stuff we think we understand) + x / y = (the Universe as we think we understand it)

Hmmm..... What if.....

X = Dark Matter
Y = Dark Energy

"Wow! That fits perfectly!"

Not much is going to change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641069)

The thing which is going to change quite soon is how we define dark energy. But until it's confirmed we can't say that for sure and it may take longer than expected.
Basically dark energy doesn't seem to exist in the dimensions we can observe, and it may be even smaller than what is currently known as "Planck Length".
Still, it's the biggest thing in the universe and the main underlying fabric of it were light and matter can exist.
Apparently as it seems the description of dark energy will be even more complicated than complete quantum mechanics and quantum theory, and even more difficult to understand as it doesn't exist in our 4 dimensions we can observe.
At the moment it's more likely that advancements in AI and understanding of theory of mind will be able to deliver such solution, thru the code and not just pen and paper.
It could be that it actually already happened it will just take many years to understand it.

Not much is going to change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641107)

I just love it when someone takes something we don't yet understand, and wraps it up in a bunch of big complicated scientific mumbo jumbo that makes even less sense.

It's simple really - we know three things for sure about dark energy. Based on our recent observations the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, this rate started increasing only five billion years ago, and the expansion seems to be greatest in the parts of the cosmos with the least mass (the large spaces between galaxies).

Studying distant supernovas is how two independent groups with independent data came to the same conclusion at the same time (see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6085/1090.2.summary).

Anything said about its complexity, dimensions, scale, or mental acuity needed to solve our understanding of it is pure speculation - or BS.

Re:Not much is going to change (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641425)

What I was trying to tell you, that with the increasing help of compute power and advancements of software, it's very likely that we will formulate whatever we can't formulate today and it will be far ahead of what we can confirm with observation.
You have pointed out what we understand based on observation, this is great clue to get the understanding, but don't expect that we will find out what is dark energy based on observations, because at the moment it seems that what we understand about the dark energy is close to zero, and the second thing we understand is that we don't understand it.
Hence there comes simple conclusion that the inner workings of dark energy are at least as complex as what we understand now so far regarding observable matter.
Knowing how complex is observable matter and how log it took to understand it, and what effort was taken to do it, and with dark energy not being observable (as being dark), it is straightforward conclusion that it can be done only using virtualization, some sort of simulation instead, and that would be still guessing before it's confirmed.
Knowing that progress of compute power is subject to Moore law (plus minus), it would be quite easy to predict when computers will be able to surpass humans in concluding these equations, which was pointed out that it's going to happen in 2045.

Re:Not much is going to change (1)

khallow (566160) | about 2 months ago | (#47641135)

Basically dark energy doesn't seem to exist in the dimensions we can observe

Unless it's curvature or a cosmological constant and not energy at all. Then it can manifest quite easily at our scales and observed dimensions. "Dark energy" is one of the more terrible scientific labels out there IMHO because it encourages us to think about this phenomenon in a way that may be totally misleading.

At the moment it's more likely that advancements in AI and understanding of theory of mind will be able to deliver such solution, thru the code and not just pen and paper. It could be that it actually already happened it will just take many years to understand it.

The problem with this is that stuff which is intractable to pen and paper (which is a vast amount of stuff) tends to be intractable to everything else as well. Increase in complexity tends not to be gradual, but more like a cliff.

For example, a naive approach to computing Standard Model physics of subatomic particle interactions would be via certain "perturbative" methods. Namely, take the simplest Feynman diagram (an abstract diagram detailing a scenario of particle interactions) of the input and outcome state possible, and then add possible internal interactions, summing over all possible interactions of N things before moving on to the N+1 things.

This approach explodes rapidly in computational complexity as you add more interactions (the number of computations grows faster as a function of the number of internal interactions than the factorial function). By hand, you probably can do a single additional interaction (or at least a sloppy approximation). A desktop computer can do another two or three interactions. A Solar System scale computer using all of the power of the Sun solely for this computation, could go a few more levels deep - at least during a human lifetime.

But a substantially more efficient algorithm is probably amenable to pen and paper. Such is the nature of complexity.

Re:Not much is going to change (1)

brysiek (468731) | about 2 months ago | (#47641383)

Think about this way: could we solve current computational problems 200 years ago? We could say, OK, we could use pen and paper and discover these algorithms out of blue. In theory - yes, in practice - no. The advancements in computer software are the main drivers of science, and believing that being isolated in the jungle with pen and paper, and no internet, one could formulate dark energy... In your imagination...

Big Bang or Bing Bang Theory? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641127)

The Big Bang theory is not what a lot of people think it is, for example, inflation theory explains events before the big bang theory. The Big Bang theory is simply how the universe started from something very small and expanded, thats pretty solid, inflation theory explains how the universe got to a state for the big bang theory to take effect. The Big Bang, start of the universe, doesn't have a theory, we don't have a physics for that, so anything is possible.

Big Bang or Bing Bang Theory? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641213)

Inflation - ÃoeYou Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It MeansÃ.

You're right about the Big Bang not being what people think it is - that term rather implies that you could observe it from the outside and see some gigantanormus explosion. It would be better to call it a "the entire cosmos was insanely dense super hot energy particle soup" theory. Space itself eventually grew enough for the cosmos to cool and condense to become the kind of matter we know - gas atoms and light, then eventually stars and galaxies. The cosmic background radiation is light from this condensing into atoms period - which took only about three minutes. We know this from the ratio of elements that we observe around us today. Steven Weinberg has a good book about this - or Simon Singh's book for something a bit more recent.

If you assume an infinitely dense starting point (the Big Bang), this condensing period (the three minutes) took place some 300000 years after the Big Bang. The smoothness of the cosmic background radiation suggests however that the start of the expansion of the cosmos was much faster right after the Big Bang than the expansion during the condensing period. This also suggests that the total size of the cosmos is perhaps hundreds of times larger than our observable cosmos. This faster early expansion of the cosmos is thought to have multiplied both space and matter - and is referred to as Inflation. Inflation wasn't before the Big Bang - it's an integral part of it.

You are right about not knowing about the start of the Big Bang - or anything before the Big Bang happened - we can't observe anything that happened before the condensing period, and sort of by definition outside our observable space.

No (0)

JustOK (667959) | about 2 months ago | (#47641137)

Poor writing, a constant derision of mental health issues, and excessive salaries threatens the Big Bang Theory.

dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641191)

The reason dark matter and dark energy have not been directly detected is a simple one: science has not yet gone over to the dark side.

Dark matter and dark energy (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | about 2 months ago | (#47641257)

These theories have their own problems. As noted on Slashdot previously, neither exist around dwarf globular clusters or in the local region of the Milky Way. It is not altogether impossible that our models of gravity are flawed at supermassive scales at relativistic velocities, that there's corrections needed that would produce the same effect as currently theorized for this new kind of matter and energy.

Remembering that one should never multiply entities unnecessarily, one correction factor seems preferable to two exotic phenomena that cannot be directly observed by definition.

But only if such a correction factor is theoretically justified AND explains all related observations AND is actually simpler.

There is just as much evidence these criteria are true as there is for dark stuff - currently none.

Re:Dark matter and dark energy (2)

shawnhcorey (1315781) | about 2 months ago | (#47641329)

There may less dark matter in our region of the galaxy because of the Local Bubble [wikipedia.org] . When the supernova push all the dust out of our region, it could have dragged, via gravity, some of the dark matter with it.

Re:Dark matter and dark energy (2)

AthanasiusKircher (1333179) | about 2 months ago | (#47641923)

It is not altogether impossible that our models of gravity are flawed at supermassive scales at relativistic velocities, that there's corrections needed that would produce the same effect as currently theorized for this new kind of matter and energy.

Sure it is. And very smart physicists have considered this option, among many others.

Remembering that one should never multiply entities unnecessarily, one correction factor seems preferable to two exotic phenomena that cannot be directly observed by definition.

Of course it does. Something to remember is that "dark matter" and "dark energy" are perhaps bad names. They don't necessarily imply that there is something like "normal matter" or "normal energy" out there but is just "dark" (whatever that means). They're just convenient terms to refer to the mathematical "fudge factors" that need to be invoked to explain how things in the universe are actually moving. Whether they are actually caused by a dark form of "matter" or "energy" or whatever is up for debate.

But lots of smart people are working on this exact problem, and no one yet has come up with some sort of simple "correction factor" that would work for all of this.

But only if such a correction factor is theoretically justified AND explains all related observations AND is actually simpler.

By those criteria, we should have rejected Einstein's Theory of Relativity, since it fails 2 of the 3. Einstein's theory was NOT "theoretically justified" within Newtonian mechanics (and actually suggested a number of truly weird violations of Newton), and I certainly don't think you can claim 4-dimensional tensors of space-time are "simpler" than Newton's static and uniform space.

Truly great breakthroughs in science often are not "theoretically justified" within the old models of knowledge, particularly when they involve complex new mathematical models of something -- they just fit the data better. And while the good ones often are more "elegant," they are rarely "actually simpler."

Re:Dark matter and dark energy (2)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about 2 months ago | (#47642081)

There is just as much evidence these criteria are true as there is for dark stuff - currently none.

Not actually correct. The bullet cluster (see Wikipedia) is extremely hard to explain without Dark Matter. This collision between two galaxies has effectively separated he normal matter from the dark matter so we observe a gravitational field bending light where there is no normal matter. Without Dark Matter you are left with the extremely hard task of trying to explain how a gravitational field can exist where there is no matter.

Also dark (2, Informative)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47641319)

The Dark Side of the Moon

Re:Also dark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641563)

a mass delusion, trick, and 'snare' easily avoided by a strong and constant faith in God.

we're not all so easily fooled by the dark side. this comes from the power of God and His love for His people.

Alternatives are good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47641901)

Seeing that our entire universe is little more than a spec in space, I always found the Big Bang to be as silly as creation.

Sure, it's possible... But it's too odd. I've always preferred something simpler which is that our universe is more similar to an exploding star which contained all the energy and mass and simply went boom.

It just seems that all the matter and energy in our universe more likely came from a single body of mass of where they are as plentiful as the stars in the sky.

um no (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 months ago | (#47641941)

They cast doubt on scientists' ability to do math. There has never been any verifiable evidence that it exists and it has never been measured.

No (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | about 2 months ago | (#47642211)

The answer is no.

TFA says this in about 10 pages, with all the gory details.

Can we try no to have clickbait headlines? TFA is a blog called "Ask Ethan" so it makes sense for the title to be a question. A more appropriate headline here would have been "Dark Matter and Dark Energy don't Impact the Big Bang."

Religion is at it again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642331)

seriously, this scream religious belief trying to win over science.

Dark Bang (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 months ago | (#47642399)

I bet in a few years, a new theory called "Dark Bang" will replace it.

What diff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47642457)

It doesn't make any difference. Like the global warming and lie detector frauds, it will continue to be promoted as valid.

complete and utter rubbish (5, Informative)

thegreatemu (1457577) | about 2 months ago | (#47642599)

I'm probably a bit biased here, but also an expert, since I am a physicist who studies dark matter for a living.

The title's question doesn't even make sense! Big bang theory, and in particular studying the exact power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background, is by far the strongest evidence we have for the existence of dark matter and dark energy. All those pie charts you've seen showing the divisions of baryonic matter, dark matter, and dark energy? If they're properly cited, I guarantee every single one of them comes from data from WMAP or PLANCK: CMB experiments! You can't say that dark matter gives you room to invalidate the big bang, because without that we don't have really any strong evidence for non-baryonic dark matter in the first place...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?