Will we ever find dark matter and dark energy?

[Spiral Out]

I'm utterly convinced that the mystery of dark energy is not awaiting a new scientific discovery.

Yet it will inevitably be discovered and thus labelled "dark matter" or "dark energy" because that is what they're looking for by nature of their mathematical equations and calculations and it is what they must find in order to maintain these mathematical constructs.

It's quite laughable to assert that something as complex as the universe operates on such simple foundations as mathematical equations and calculations which are merely Human abstract constructs. It's the best we've got but it's still no excuse.

Aren't Humans just so full of themselves?

[Misty]

I'm utterly convinced that the mystery of dark energy is not awaiting a new scientific discovery.

Yet it will inevitably be discovered and thus labelled "dark matter" or "dark energy" because that is what they're looking for by nature of their mathematical equations and calculations and it is what they must find in order to maintain these mathematical constructs.

It's quite laughable to assert that something as complex as the universe operates on such simple foundations as mathematical equations and calculations which are merely Human abstract constructs. It's the best we've got but it's still no excuse.

Aren't Humans just so full of themselves?

Yes, they are. God gave them so many toys to play with, then they say he doesn't exist!

[Spiral Out]

Yes, they are. God gave them so many toys to play with, then they say he doesn't exist!

Every time you mention your god I tend to hear in my mind the lyrics to the song "Judith" by A Perfect Circle.

So what's your theist take on "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Are they the stuff of gods?

[Obvious Leo]

Theists use god the way physicists use mathematical constants, namely as metaphors for what they can't explain within their limited conceptual paradigms. As a scientist I acknowledge the fact that physical processes can be described in the language of mathematics, but as a philosopher I deny that they can be explained in this language, precisely because they are processes and therefore dynamic. The mathematical approach to physics is akin to examining the universe as if it were a cadaver on a slab rather than as a system undergoing continuous change. Such an anatomical dissection can tell them much about the structure of energy and matter but nothing of its function, which in a dynamic system is what makes a physical entity what it is. An atom IS what an atom DOES, if you like. On the mortuary slab the human heart is just a piece of rotting meat which can only be understood in terms of its interconnectedness with all the other pieces of rotting meat. In the living human its structure is determined by its function, not the other way around. The whole cannot be understood as an extrapolation of the sum of its parts, a principle that lies at the heart of process philosophy, complexity theory and the systems gestalt approach to physics.

Physics effectively abandoned the scientific method after the Solvay conference and replaced it with the paradigm of model-building. We should be grateful that Copernicus was not so blinkered, otherwise we'd still be trying to describe the cosmos with the mathematics of the Ptolemaic epicycles. However this judgement might be a little too harsh because explaining reality is not in fact the physicists core business, as was clearly pointed out by Niels Bohr. The problem is that too many have succeeded in convincing themselves otherwise because they don't know their epistemological arses from their ontological elbows. Model-building is doing science backwards and dark matter and dark energy are excellent examples of what this can lead to.

Regards Leo

[Mechsmith]

Leo, I think that you are right as far as your comment on model building. I have no quarrel with making an observation and then trying to develop a model or theory to attempt to explain those observations but it's easy to get carried away, particularly if there is a lot of money around.

Frankly I don't think we will find dark energies or matter in the amounts required to make the red shift work. BUT I'll be glad to look for some for a modest annual stipend. For just a little more I will go elephant hunting in Antartica. While I am at it if someone will underwrite the costs we could set up an expedition to find the pot of gold that anchors the rainbow.

I am afraid that some of our physicists hhave got religion

[SoylentGreen]

Maybe there is no dark matter. The quest on the part of astrophysicists to find it may be a clue that they just don't have all the tools/skills necessary to understand the universe. But if there is dark matter, might it be found inside black holes? Black holes are supposedly singularities, and the definition of a singularity is a zero point of spacetime with infinite density. So what's the problem? All you have to do is find one stupid singularity and there's all the matter you'll ever need. Now let's go find one and see what's inside. Someone got a spaceship?

[Obvious Leo]

I am afraid that some of our physicists hhave got religion

Exactly so. The spacetime paradigm is an entirely faith-based assumption. Not only is it unproven it is in fact unprovable, but its biggest flaw lies in the fact that it makes no sense. The hubris of physicists is legendary and therefore because their paradigm was making such astonishingly accurate predictions they were happy to leap to the conclusion that we must therefore live in a universe that makes no sense. The philosopher of the bloody obvious is alert to such a transparent inductivist trap and the man of common sense would rather suspect that there must be something wrong with the faith-based assumption.

Black holes are supposedly singularities, and the definition of a singularity is a zero point of spacetime with infinite density.

This is an entirely mathematical conclusion derived from General Relativity and makes no sense whatsoever. Nobody in the field of physics makes this assumption any more and the singularity is now a part of physics history. Even the dumbest physics undergraduate now knows that the equations of General Relativity are not applicable in extreme gravitational environments and that an infinite entity cannot be contained within a finite one. Georg Cantor pointed this out well before GR was published but because Georg was barking mad nobody took much notice of him for a hundred years. The masses of black holes are calculable and infinity is an unrealisable abstraction whose only utility lies in its application as a mathematical tool, as is zero. Neither of these abstractions can be meaningfully applied to a physically real entity because they can only describe the way a system tends and not its final state. In physics infinity is just a polite word for WRONG.

Regards Leo

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

why is it [dark matter and dark energy] so hard to locate?

The concept of location often does not apply to intangible things. [...]
Where is kinetic energy located? Where is solar energy located? Where is the gravitational force of the Moon located?

These are questions for another thread. I'm only asking if we will ever find or locate the dark energy and dark matter (say, before the turn of the next century)?

No, they are example questions that demonstrate the structural flaw with your question which all those questions and your titular question share.

These are ridiculous questions.

Yes, exactly; as explained earlier, that's the point. Questions like where is kinetic energy or dark energy or solar energy located are structurally flawed--or, bluntly speaking, absurd-- and as will be any attempted answers.

Discrete objects have location, not categorical sets of intangibles.

Where is kinetic energy located? Kinetic energy of what? Please specify and you'll have your answer.

Then answer the question dark energy of what.

Where is solar energy located? Inside the moon. Prove me wrong.

Where is the gravitation force of the Moon located? Inside of the Sun. Prove me wrong on that one too.

What incredibly absurd answers! The absurdity of these answers demonstrates that indeed questions of this type are nonsensical and thus answerable.

[Misty]

Yes, they are. God gave them so many toys to play with, then they say he doesn't exist!

Every time you mention your god I tend to hear in my mind the lyrics to the song "Judith" by A Perfect Circle.

So what's your theist take on "dark matter" and "dark energy"? Are they the stuff of gods?

I went out on youtube to listen to 'Judith' by A Perfect Circle. It has to be the most hideous, so called music, I have ever heard. The lyrics are disgusting. I now see where you get some of your ideas. It is a shame.

My personal take on dark matter/energy is there is no proof that they exist, yet. The bible does not mention either.

My post was a confirmation of your saying humans are full of themselves.

[Obvious Leo]

The bible does not mention either.

Well I'm glad we've got that settled. If it's not in the bible it must be crap. However this does raise a serious existential problem for me personally. The bible doesn't mention Australia either so my entire nation must be a myth.

Regards Leo

[Misty]

Interesting. What kind of instrument will be needed to detect another "basic principle" especially if it is the Word of God that defines the workings of the universe? Perhaps dark energy is really light energy called the will of God!

I think your on the right track, a bit, but I myself am not religious so I wouldn't put it in those terms. It can't be 'detected' by any instruments because it's a question of cognition and not perception. There's nothing to see. There's something to be conceptualized.

The ancients called that force 'intent'. They said it was a conscious force. They would have said that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate not because of some unknown matter/energy but rather because it's being 'intended' to do that. The only implication is consciousness, but of course one is free to elaborate on the nature of that consciousness, singular or collective.

It can't be 'detected' by any instruments because it's a question of cognition and not perception. There's nothing to see. There's something to be conceptualized.

Exactly the way I see it. I'm utterly convinced that the mystery of dark energy is not awaiting a new scientific discovery. It's awaiting a new way of thinking the world. Regards, Leo

Or it could be awaiting the confirmation of or clarity of the creators work. Which, I guess would be new thinking for some thinkers.

[Obvious Leo]

As a student of the English language I'm absolutely certain that to use the words "clarity" and "creator's work" in the same sentence is to compose an oxymoron. As to confirmation I don't propose to hold my breath.

Regards Leo

[Philosophy Explorer]

Scott asked:

"Then answer the question dark energy of what."

Answering a question with another question isn't good form Scott. Since I asked first, you're obliged to answer first and I'll answer once you get serious.

PhilX

[Misty]

As a student of the English language I'm absolutely certain that to use the words "clarity" and "creator's work" in the same sentence is to compose an oxymoron. As to confirmation I don't propose to hold my breath.

Regards Leo

The bible does not mention either.

Well I'm glad we've got that settled. If it's not in the bible it must be crap. However this does raise a serious existential problem for me personally. The bible doesn't mention Australia either so my entire nation must be a myth.

Regards Leo

Leo,

How could I have composed the sentence and not have created an oxymoron? Perhaps 2 sentences? I am not a student of the English language as you said you are, so I respect your opinion.

I answered Spiral Outs question about what the gods think of dark energy and dark matter with "the bible does not mention either." It was not meant that because the bible does not mention it that it must be crap.

I visited Australia and confirm it exists. Beautiful country and people. There are many countries not mentioned in the bible but it does not mean they don't exist. I just meant there is no information in the bible about dark energy/matter. I am open to all sources of information. The idea I proposed is just as feasible as yours.

I like reading your posts Leo. I have learned a lot from you.

Misty

[Philosophy Explorer]

Misty wrote:

"I visited Australia and confirm it exists. Beautiful country and people. There are many countries not mentioned in the bible but it does not mean they don't exist. I just meant there is no information in the bible about dark energy/matter. I am open to all sources of information. The idea I proposed is just as feasible as yours."

Remember that the Bible was written many years ago when many countries were unknown or didn't exist. Also the Bible wasn't concerned with DM/DE.

Here's a good question about dark energy. I believe I read somewhere that it hasn't always been around. If anybody can add some details to this, I'd be interested.

PhilX