Bad Science

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091218-dark-matter-detected-mine-minnesota.html

Dark Matter Detected for First Time?
Ker Than
for National Geographic News
December 18, 2009

Dark matter may have been "felt" for the first time deep in a Minnesota mine, physicists say.

Detectors in the mine, part of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment, were tripped recently by what might be weakly interacting massive particles, or WIMPs.

WIMPs are among the most popular candidates for dark matter, the invisible material that scientists think makes up more than 80 percent of the mass in the universe.

...

Ockham's razor: "plurality should not be posited without necessity" or "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

When such an interaction happens, a WIMP careens like a billiard ball off an atom, the theory goes. But the collision leaves behind a unique signature in the form of a small amount of heat, which can be detected.

So a hypothetical particle in a hypothetical new class of matter -- which is invisible -- is posited to explain a phenomena which is not only already the most common phenomena in all chemical and nuclear science (that is the conversion of various forms of energy into heat) but is also the most common noise-factor in almost any experiment one might look to undertake.

And this is science?

 

[Tarum]

That sucks. You can't get far enough with science.

 

That sucks. You can't get far enough with science.

I'm sorry, did you have a point to make or ... ?

 

[morttt]

WIMP... I wonder how long it took for them to come up with that one.

(no point to make here either, sorry )

 

[wombakage]

WIMP... I wonder how long it took for them to come up with that one.

(no point to make here either, sorry )

This is just like explaining god. You have to make up a bunch of shit.

 

[µBOTNETµ]

Dark Matter is where 'Science' Breaks down completley, it's the same with mathmatics. When broken down to the most complex we've achieved it breaks down. Stops following the rules which we Believe in E.g two positive numbers equalling to a minus number.

I'm really baffled on how dark matter could possibly be felt? is that capable? I thought black holes were supposedly made out of 'Black Matter' Which is also where science, and maths cannot explain how stars, etc dissapear into 'Black Holes' and such.

 

Dark Matter is where 'Science' Breaks down completley, it's the same with mathmatics. When broken down to the most complex we've achieved it breaks down. Stops following the rules which we Believe in E.g two positive numbers equalling to a minus number.

That's called a contradiction. It's not a breakdown of the system, it's simply people not following the system. Clearly you don't understand the scientific method.

 

[FreedomFight]

Invisible just means they don't reflect or emit light. Of course this makes finding evidence difficult, but certainly not impossible.

I personally see Dark Matter as a hole in commonly accepted gravity-universe theories. While these formulas appear to be accurate in the vast majority of what we can empirically observe, they also predict the universe to be much more massive than it currently is.

This leads to three possibilities:
1. We have overpredicted how matter the universe holds. Either the theory is off, or the data applied into the theory is off.

2. We have underestimated the mass of the known universe.

3. We are failing to take into account what we cannot yet observe easily with current technology, aka Dark Matter.

Both theories one and two were studied extensively, leaving three to be the most widespread belief. I also feel that you and national geographic have oversimplified the data collected in order to appeal to a less educated audience. Especially here, where it seems evident that the majority of the people lack even the fundamental knowledge to pursue any sort of intelligent discussion.

 

Both theories one and two were studied extensively, leaving three to be the most widespread belief. I also feel that you and national geographic have oversimplified the data collected in order to appeal to a less educated audience. Especially here, where it seems evident that the majority of the people lack even the fundamental knowledge to pursue any sort of intelligent discussion.

The data collection isn't the problem -- although it is a problem of its own. As you rightly point out, the current cosmological model has a huge hole in it, so massive in fact it miscalculates the mass of the universe by five fold; at least the mass according to other theories.

I think it's an obvious case of bad science. These people are draining research funding to look for what is almost literally invisible pink elephants that 'hold the universe together'.

 

[FreedomFight]

I think it's an obvious case of bad science. These people are draining research funding to look for what is almost literally invisible pink elephants that 'hold the universe together'.

I agree with you if you mean that so-called "accepted" theories are given an overtly high amount of attention and take an unfair amount of evidence to be disproven. In part, this is indeed human nature acting somewhat against the fundamental practice of good science.

However, I have yet to see a "explain-everything" theory to not have large holes of its own. While the current theories do have discrepancies , the alternates arguably have even larger problems. I know in the past you have advocated for the Electric Universe theory, so I did look into it a bit more. Admittedly, finding definitive evidence on either side was pretty hard, as it isn't really considered mainstream science. http://www.tim-thompson.com/electric-sun.html

Either way, I'm not really here to spark another electric universe debate. I'm simply not educated enough to really advocate fairly from any side, and would most likely just rip evidence from people who know better than I do. I think I understand your point about the poor application of Occam's razor; alternatively, I'd also suggest that you might be investing yourself too deeply in the alternative theories, while overlooking their own discrepancies.

 

[µBOTNETµ]

That's called a contradiction. It's not a breakdown of the system, it's simply people not following the system. Clearly you don't understand the scientific method.

If contradiction exists, then clearly there's a 'breakdown' in the mechanics its self? Explain how something can be fully correct, if theres contradiction. If it's wrong because it has contradiction then it would be a 'Breakdown'

I do realize, im not too advanced in higher level maths, and science. But i still like to discuss and debate.

 

I'd also suggest that you might be investing yourself too deeply in the alternative theories, while overlooking their own discrepancies.

I'm not particularly invested in electric universe. But if I had to pick the better theory I would definitely pick it.

One of the main points I am trying to raise is that we don't need (and shouldn't expect) an alternative theory in order to dismiss a bad existing one.

The most important thing a scientist can say is "We don't know."

In particular the allocation of resources toward researching already bad science doesn't help anyone, except bad scientists. If mainstream science were held to proper scientific standards (as in the market) intellectual capital could be productively spent on the discovery of actual truth.

I suppose in this sense, the state, like every previous church, has absorbed the intellectuals from the population, and put them to work doing not-a-lot to keep them safely at bay and bought over.

 

[The Fat Controller]

So WIMPs are a whim of state funded (bad) scientists that are out to enrich themselves by doing not-a-lot. Conclusion based off Ockham's Razor. I can't say I'm convinced.

Trying to resolve discrepancies by revising existing theories isn't looking for pink elephants, it's basic scientific method. Supersymmetry offers solutions to a bunch of challenges to the Standard Model, and if testing for them is what scientists want to do, why not?

I don't see why you'd raise the issue of expense with these experiments, a detector in a mine is small change compared to a particle accelerator.

 

[Omfg1234]

When someone is looking for something, they have a bias towards the results, and can twist them to fit their own expectations. They expect to find something, and end up seeing it.

 

Conclusion based off Ockham's Razor. I can't say I'm convinced.

Loaded statement fallacy. The conclusion to the argument was separate from the commentary.

Trying to resolve discrepancies by revising existing theories isn't looking for pink elephants, it's basic scientific method. Supersymmetry offers solutions to a bunch of challenges to the Standard Model, and if testing for them is what scientists want to do, why not?

A veiled appeal to authority, and the fallacy of sunk costs.

The conclusions of the chain of reasoning are bad. They have been bad for a long time; in that: little new is discovered by consequence of reasoning using these theories, and that which is discovered is by accident, and is simply nailed onto the theory.

Try to see this from a phenomenological stand point. What are the facts; what observably exists?

The detectors are cooled to close to absolute zero and particle interactines deposit energy as heat and as charges that move in an applied electric field. Data is collected in a computer system and this data is analyzed to determine whether the particle hitting the crystal is a WIMP, particles from radioactive decay, or from space.

Photoelectric dectors, underground, the same type they use to detect 'cosmic rays', in a similar but less robust setup, detecting the same phenomenon. So basically its a repeat experiment, and the repeat experiment will have the same results as last time. And they want to attribute this same phenomena to a new hypothetical particle in a new hypothetical category of matter. -- Which is also, apparently, invisible and untouchable, but which is five times more abundant than normal matter.

Let me reiterate. The cosmological theory is wrong. The gravity theory of the universe is wrong. That's not my opinion, they objectively do not produce results consistent with observed behaviours in reality.

I don't see why you'd raise the issue of expense with these experiments, a detector in a mine is small change compared to a particle accelerator.

Yes, which is also state funded junk-science.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Loaded statement fallacy. The conclusion to the argument was separate from the commentary.

Don't take it literally. That was what it looked like you meant. I was showing how well you conflate the separate issues of viability of WIMPs as a hypothesis, and that of who pays the physicists.

A veiled appeal to authority,

You are not as to physicists as Howard Roark is to classical architects. An appeal to authority is entirely appropriate.

and the fallacy of sunk costs.

Yes, which is also state funded junk-science.

I'm not going to discuss libertarianism with you.

The conclusions of the chain of reasoning are bad. They have been bad for a long time; in that: little new is discovered by consequence of reasoning using these theories, and that which is discovered is by accident, and is simply nailed onto the theory.

It does not follow that a branch of physics should be dropped and begun anew because some aspects of some theories do not match observations. The Standard Model is generally accepted as the most complete description of experimental data that there is. There are plenty of paper-based theories to fill the holes in it. The difficulty is with getting the data. Nevertheless, if WIMPs are detected for sure, then it certainly won't be the first time a hypothetical particle is proven to exist.

 

It does not follow that a branch of physics should be dropped and begun anew because some aspects of some theories do not match observations.

Core theories do not match observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

The Standard Model is generally accepted as the most complete description of experimental data that there is.

Again, appeal to authority / popularity. This has no bearing on its validity.

There are plenty of paper-based theories to fill the holes in it. The difficulty is with getting the data. Nevertheless, if WIMPs are detected for sure, then it certainly won't be the first time a hypothetical particle is proven to exist.

What will be detected, as before, is anomalous charge in some sort of in a silicon junction. It does not logically follow that the cause is a new hypothetical particle.

The more I consider it, the more ridiculous the experiment is. Consider for example, what is being proposed here. The hypothesis is that the bulk of the universe is / exists in this huge field of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' and we can pick it up if only we're quiet enough.

Isn't this exactly along the lines of the most famous failed experiment in history?

Oh, but that's right, they've already done the most famous failed experiment in history, again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO

And that one doesn't produce discernible data either.

 

[FreedomFight]

Core theories do not match observation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson

Explain. I wasn't aware the tests had been run yet; after all, the collider has just become operational again.

Again, appeal to authority / popularity. This has no bearing on its validity.

Well in these sorts of debates, seeing as none of us are physicists...there's going to be a tendency to either oversimplify or appeal to those who know better than we do.

What will be detected, as before, is anomalous charge in some sort of in a silicon junction. It does not logically follow that the cause is a new hypothetical particle.

Once again, back to oversimplification.

The more I consider it, the more ridiculous the experiment is. Consider for example, what is being proposed here. The hypothesis is that the bulk of the universe is / exists in this huge field of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' and we can pick it up if only we're quiet enough.

I agree, it is a pretty large hole in the theory.

You mentioned earlier than we don't need an alternate to say something ridiculous. I disagree; ideally, science should choose and explore the best theory available. Whether or not this theory is indeed the strongest is a different debate altogether.

Science isn't always correct,you must always have a "but" to every theory in science.For example the big bang theory is repeatedly thought over and over again.Some people fight that it's not true based on religion;not all scientists are atheists.Also if an object doesn't not emit light then they are not for certain that it's anti matter.Anti-matter is the inverse of matter so I think it cannot be touched;leading to the conclusion that this is not even remotely "science."

This is intellectual debate, good sir.

 

Explain. I wasn't aware the tests had been run yet; after all, the collider has just become operational again.

The reason they built it is because they can't find it.
"With a 9 billion dollars budget, the LHC is the most expensive scientific experiment in human history."

All of 'quantum mechanics' ... 'the standard model' is based on the assumption of wave-particle duality and the sister assumption that mass and energy are the same thing, namely mass-energy.

Unfortunately for their model, they have yet to find the magical mass-giving component that separates massless light from material objects. In short, they have yet to actually provide tangible evidence for the two most core assumptions in the model.

Incidentally, it is always the case that one can claim "that's an oversimplification" with respect to something, however such a claim (like any other claim) should be substantiated. Specifically, in the relevance of the debate, if a simplification or generalization is made, and one takes exception to it, one should provide examples as to how the over-simplification erroneously alters the reasoning.

 

[FreedomFight]

The reason they built it is because they can't find it.
"With a 9 billion dollars budget, the LHC is the most expensive scientific experiment in human history."

Well, you need certain tools to find certain objects? I'm sure you've already discarded the evidence of other particles they've found using this seemingly extraneous method.

All of 'quantum mechanics' ... 'the standard model' is based on the assumption of wave-particle duality and the sister assumption that mass and energy are the same thing, namely mass-energy.

I'm not sure what you mean. Last I heard, there is actually a fairly large gap between quantum mechanics and the Standard Model, both of which, are accurate only when you consider the wave-particle nature separately.

Incidentally, it is always the case that one can claim "that's an oversimplification" with respect to something, however such a claim (like any other claim) should be substantiated.

Fair enough.

In particular, I am criticizing your simplification of the heat signatures. Scientifically, these signatures are very much like fingerprints; what you are doing here is basically saying "Big deal, they found a fingerprint, everybody leaves them behind".