OK, so we do know that Dark Matter is affected by Gravity. We've observed it and have seen it in simulations of galaxies colliding. So, what do we observe (or DON'T observe) when Dark Matter is swallowed by a Black Hole? Can this observation (or lack thereof) be used to help us find out what Dark Matter is made of?

(A small addition that has a lot to do with the last part of the original Blog Post.)

The one I posted directly above has some small changes for easier reading. I still need to do a little idea storming at the end as I'm VERY unsure whether the forces at play would still hold the Universe together.

It's more likely that the "big rip" will win out, even over the weak and strong nuclear forces (which is a lot of energy considering that it just did it to the UNIVERSE! heh...

I also need to see, particularly under what conditions the Universe might start to be "swayed" by quantum fluctuations, the same you see at the beginning of the big bang, that had a lot to do with how matter and other non-baryonic (that 's the official way of saying, matter that isn't like the stuff we know: like Dark Matter) matter set up (when you look at the cosmic background radiation (CBR) map, the "hot vs. cold") topography wise; it's why the Universe isn't a smooth uniform (or symmetric) balanced energy place; which you would expect from a perfect explosion like the Big Bang, but the CBR shows that the explosion was far from being smooth and quite the opposite.

It's what gives us our galaxies and also where they're at. The question besides how gravity is related to the quantum mechanics realm; as we have NO theory (with a few hypotheses that almost all have to do with string theory: strings of energy in different "dimensional" configurations; like one dimension, two dimension (planer), etc..."; these little strings vibrate, kind of like a standing wave and intercede and connect into our dimension: think of a plane with limited dimensions on the x & y, then imagine a line intersecting in two spots--one coming "up" the other going "down", but the second connection BARELY hits the plane.

On our end we see a photon that appears to act like a particle and wave in whichever situation it's facing.Normally it may only act like a wave the first spot, but since the energy of this photon is a gamma ray (increased energy) it caused the string to vibrate more forcefully. Thus, connecting it to our "planer" observable space-time. But, when the energy decreases, the photon's string is pulled back and all of a sudden it only displays one of the two characteristics. Baryonic matter works the same way in String Theory, but requires VERY hard math to solve the discrepancies (one of the reasons some people hate it as it isn't a so called "elegant solution"; everything we've seen so far, while hard to grasp initially--tends to, "so far", work out to be very easy solutions).

However, string theory has described many things we have found out in the particle world very well. Another idea (which is more elegant and to me, the presence of "e" in it is very, intriguing) is E8 Symmetry. It's also a mathematical solution, so don't expect too much straight forward dialogue in it's definition. However, remember that Euler's number/The "Natural" number, "e", is related to a great many things already present in everyday life and the formation of almost everything from: you neural pathways, your circulatory system, clouds, trees/plants, sea shells, galaxies, fractals, and much much more...

What I need to know his how baryonic matter would react given a scenario were everything is ripped apart. Specifically, it's quantum mechanical reactions. Does it go into a "quantum critical state" (a fancy way of saying "pseudo"-superposition), as in this state it would still behave in a quantum mechanical way according to superposition. This leads to the last question. If it does enter superposition, is it possible that it may become "uncoupled, disassociated, or dis-entangled" from other matter, even non-baryonic matter like dark matter.

Anyway, just a bit more for what I wrote. More of me, thinking aloud, as I've read a lot about entanglement and superposition, but in this scenario I'd mot likely need an expert to think about it and give me an answer. Math will most likely be useless till we have some hard information on it; right now it's just pure observation. Then you may be able to commit yourself to some math that would show (or at least predict) what most likely would occur.

Another long ponderment! I'm keeping that word so screw you Merriam-Webster!

http://videosift.com/video/Dark-Matters-an-introduction-a-tease-a-taste-of-the-whole

I think you'll like this. I want to see the whole thing.

>> ^harry:

>> ^kceaton1:
...There could be magnetism involved...

That confirms my theory that this is powered by MAGIC.


As long as MAGIC stands for: PHOTON. Ta Da!!!

No really that about covers it. Although in that picture I'm unsure why they plug in "graviton" as it doesn't exist yet nor does the understanding of how the fundamental forces/mass combine (Higgs boson/ Higgs field).

Then just figure out dark matter (which could be gravitons for all we know)... Then dark energy... Etc...


/I know it's a joke You magnificent Juggalo/ette.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^deathcow:
You mean like Anti-Water?

Basically, or if it has different properties because of (anti)quarks resulting in different chemical compounds.


Another thing that might be interesting to look at is decay rate. We already know how normal mass does it's thing, but anti-matter seems to be for the most part "gone" from the Universe. The non-symmetry aspect of anti-matter will be a big thing in physics, in general, to understand.

So I may have answered my own question as I'm sure decay rates would certainly be an obvious thing to look at. If any of the fundamental forces are different, for example, you could have anti-matter out in space hiding from view in blackholes, etc...

Right now they're looking at dark matter being a sort of "condensed state" matter that "can't" react with anything but itself and weakly at that. Gravity as well (it looks like). Outside of this state we might find it a lot, but we do not understand the mechanism that created it or is creating it. Anti-matter was brought up in this argument. At some point after the big bang the anti-matter would have joined with particle "x" and became this condensed matter that basically has most of it's fundamental forces bound to itself. Therefore, unless this stuff breaks apart due to some process, we may never find it as it is essentially swept under the rug and we can't lift the rug.

>> ^Ornthoron:

Funny how he talks about the forefront of science in part 3, and mentions all the unsolved problems at the time of filming. All the problems he mentioned have since been solved, and it turns out reality is simpler than what he describes here, just like he predicted. For instance, we now know that there are 6 different quarks (plus the antiquarks) instead of 3, and that this simplifies the equations greatly.
The LHC is right now investigating the possibility of another property of physics called super symmetry, which if true would double the number of particles we know of. One or more of these new particles might turn out to be what the mysterious dark matter that makes up most of the material universe is composed of. These are exciting times indeed.


I like the part where they discuss (also at the end of part 3) that the very laws themselves are stated without history. That, perhaps, at different times, or even different places in the universe, the laws are mutable. That the rules that most fundamental rules of the universe might always be in flux to some degree. If that be the case, it makes the investigation into this very "monad" centric science difficult.

It would also mean that we could find these laws of the universe, but we would never understand the meta rules that govern them. It would place a logical end point on empirical investigation.

And as I opened up my trousers and looked down into the dark matter two balls of light emitted some goo across the unfathomable infinity only to come splash me about the eye one google later.

I loved the one statement: "I'm free to change my mind if it seems that I should."

That really encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Religious freaks keep saying that atheist "deify" science and have "faith" in it and I really think the statement above serves to show what the major difference is: Religion takes holy texts (or the words of people who have declared that they somehow channel god through their words) as being unwavering truth. Science works towards truths, but is ALWAYS willing to reexamine its conclusions should new evidence appear.

Earlier in the month, someone on VS tried to call me on believing in Dark Matter (which some speculate is unmeasurable) but not believing in the possibility that Jesus is running around controlling the universe (which is also unmeasurable).

The difference is that dark matter is predicted by measurement. It doesn't clinch that it exists and my mind is entirely open to another explanation about why the rotation of the outer parts of galaxies seems to move contrary to what one would expect given the amount of mass one would predict at the edge of a disk. That said, there is absolutely nothing in nature that predicts Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohamed, or the flying spaghetti monster.

First off, thanks for replying. I enjoy these conversations. They give me lots of great things to think about and explore.

Now, I think you unintentionally changed my argument. My argument wasn't "How does science explain why I like sugar?" I know people like sugary foods already. My point was that science cannot tell me why it is that of all the yummy flavors of ice cream out there, I like chocolate chip mint best. This, by the way, is not a technical limitation of science. Science can, as you noted in your post, provide an explanation as to why I prefer eating ice cream to say, spinach. It can indeed tell me about all the processes that occur in my brain (which areas get activated, what chemicals get released, etc.) when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream. The problem is that these processes will not be the same for all people who eat chocolate chip mint ice cream.

So what we have here, then, are people experiencing that same exact objective event--we're all eating the same ice cream--and getting different results. Science is utterly unprepared to deal with this situation. Science only works in a situation in which objective knowledge can be obtained. It shouldn't matter who is doing the measuring--you should get the same result. Yet in this situation, we have multiple people "measuring" (ie tasting ice cream) and getting different results depending on the person.

To truly answer the question of why I like chocolate chip mint best, we are forced to refer to subjective knowledge and explore my personal life history up to this point, including things like my experiences, feelings, attitudes, likes and dislikes, etc. These things cannot be measured. How do you measure an experience? How could you possibly understand what I meant by without being me--having access to all of my memories, thoughts, feelings, EVERYTHING that is me? The answer is simple: you couldn't. I could explain to you in crude terms that I like chocolate chip mint better than chocolate chip by only a little bit, but you will never be able to "know" exactly what I mean "by only a little bit" (without being me, that is).

Your argument is that this problem is simply a technical matter, but I'm curious if you've taken that view to its logical conclusion--that we have no free will and are simply automatons that function at the whim of electrical impulses and chemical reactions in the brain. If science truly could explain to me why I like chocolate chip mint ice cream over say pistachio without taking into account my subjective experiences, then subjective experiences would have no meaning at all. Is that really what you're suggesting?

Let me next address a couple of unspoken assumptions you made in your reply to me. One seems to be that people of faith stop searching for answers because they believe in a god or higher power. But here clearly we have significant counter-evidence to your belief--namely in the vast number of scientists who are also believers in some religion (see this article). As scientists, they must continue to look for answers and re-evaluate new evidence as it arises, which seems to run counter to your assumption.

Another assumption seems to be that science and "rational thinking" makes people less likely to believe in religion. Again, see the previous article, which shows the percentage of scientists believe in religion hasn't changed so much despite the advances in science from 1916 to 1997 (when the second study was done). Are there religious people who are closed-minded and refuse to re-evaluate new evidence as it arises? Absolutely. But that is not a characteristic of many religious people and therefore your assumption would be an over-generalization.

Now, on to your next assumption--that no one will cry over the loss of dark matter. While I agree that in an ideal world, this would be true, I think you and I can agree the world we live in would be far from ideal. Science takes a great deal of time to change. The very skepticism that science holds so dear also puts the brakes on quick change in consensus within the scientific community. People will refuse to change their beliefs quickly. Experimental data will be checked and re-checked and I'm sure criticisms will be made about experiment design and other factors. Few experiments are performed that are so well designed as to be able to defy criticism. Skepticism doesn't just require evidence for belief, it requires overwhelming evidence and hence any change will be slow (there are still scientists arguing against global warming).

Ironically, I think you could look at religious people as reverse-skeptics. Where a skeptic will not believe anything without overwhelming evidence to support it, a religious person will not change their belief in something without overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. And this, I suppose, is the main reason why skeptics and believers simply cannot agree with each other. There is not enough (I would say any, actually) reliable evidence (objective or subjective) to convince either side. How could there be? Most skeptics discount subjective knowledge (their own included) right from the start. Everyone is arguing over apples and oranges.

Now, by all means, when someone says the world is 6000 years old, or that Jesus walked with dinosaurs, or that evolution is "just a theory," by all means take these people to task. They're wandering about in the realm of objective knowledge where science reigns supreme. But when someone says they believe in something (religion, Democracy, volunteering, world peace, whatever), demanding they show objective evidence of their belief and ridiculing them if they can't meet your arbitrary standard of proof (science requires overwhelming evidence, but there's no clear definition of how much is enough) is just plain wrong in my opinion.

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldn't be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

Perhaps, but no religious apologist I've ever heard has managed to convince me of that. Thats my whole point. If a believer came to me saying something like "we have independent statistics showing a significant benefit of prayer among cancer patients", that would be the kind of thing that might make me admit that belief in god was a rational and logical decision.

To your point about chocolate preference, I wouldnt be as sure, it may be a technical limitation rather than an absolute one. We already know why people tend to like chocolate, for instance (evolved sugar craving) its a tad more tricky to find out the specifics of your particular taste, but if we fully understood every detail of the brain, it might not be impossible, even without actually being you. Either way, Chocolate is a perfect example of how our subjective experience fails us: Because our ancestors lived in environments where sugar was a rarity, our bodies treat every carbohydrate molecule like it was the jackpot, basically our bodies telling us "Sugar in large quantities is great for you" Well its not, and thats a perfect example of how objective knowledge and scientific thinking always prevail over the subjective assumptions we make.

Which brings me to the point about the sun moving across the sky, which is again were science triumphs: Yes, the default assumption was that the sun, moon and stars moved around the earth, but the important part of the story is that as scientists and curious apes as we are, we arent happy just making assumptions and stop there, we keep investigating, as we will do with dark matter, it may be the best assumption we currently have, but thats not the important thing, the important thing about science is that we keep trying to figure out exactly whats going on, and if that means scrapping the whole idea about dark matter, no scientist will shed a tear, (just like we didnt when it turned out we werent the center of the universe) we will rejoice in our deeper understanding of things.

>> ^SDGundamX:

What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

Regardless of the fact that it is based on reasoning, it still is, in fact, a guess. Evidence suggesting dark matter exists does not prove the existence of dark matter (as is evidenced by the other competing theories). 2000 years ago evidence suggested the sun revolved around the Earth. At the time, that was a reasonable explanation given the evidence--the apparent motion of the sun in the sky--even though it wasn't actually the truth. I am not suggesting dark matter won't be proven (ie measured or detected) someday. I am suggesting that science allows for belief in unproven things--so long as that belief is based on reasoning and logic.

To take it one step further, I am also suggesting that many religious people base their beliefs on reasoning and logic. However, unlike science, most people, when making decisions about their beliefs (any belief, not just religious attitude), do not restrict themselves to objective evidence. Science limits itself arbitrarily to the objective realm, despite the fact that we as humans have access to both objective and subjective knowledge about the world.

The limitation to objective knowledge is necessary for science because the whole point of science is to explore the physical properties of the universe--to acquire objective knowledge. Science dismisses out of hand subjective knowledge. The problem is that we have access to both types of knowledge and indeed use both types of knowledge in making decisions. Just to give one example of the limitations of science, science can tell me all about the processes that occur in my brain when I eat chocolate chip mint ice cream but it cannot answer the question of why I think chocolate chip ice cream is the best. The processes in my brain are objective knowledge that does not require "being me" to be understood. Truly understanding why I believe chocolate chip mint ice cream is the best, on the other hand, can only occur if you are able to actually be me for a moment and experience it yourself. Since that's not possible, the only in-between is for me to describe in words how it makes me feel--a clumsy method, to be sure, and one which is unlikely to convince you chocolate chip mint is the best if you favor a different flavor.

So, while science claims that there is no objective evidence to support someone's belief in a particular religion, that person can offer their own subjective experiences as evidence for why they believe. The fact that science cannot deal with subjective experience as evidence is a limitation of science and not a limitation of the mental faculties of the person who believes. The fact that such subjective experiences are not convincing to others is a limitation of not being able to experience what the other person has experienced (and possibly a limitation of the communication skills of the speaker). A believer in a particular religion most likely has evidence (both objective and subjective) to support their position. They may not have enough objective evidence to meet science's rigorous standards, but that doesn't mean their belief is unreasonable or illogical. What you see as a leap-of-faith may be to the experiencer a perfectly rational and logical decision.

NOTE: This is not to say that there cannot exist religious believers who are unreasonable or illogical. They can and do exist. I am merely pointing out that science cannot be used to measure the validity of viewpoints like "Chocolate chip mint is the best ice cream" or "I believe in Christianity" [which I don't, by the way].

In reply to this comment by BicycleRepairMan:
SDGundamX: I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof.



I dont think I misunderstood what you attempted to do, but I think you failed to show that scientists make the same kinds of leap-of-faith as religion does. My whole point about dark matter is that there IS evidence that strongly suggests that it exists, its not just about scientists throwing out a guess. Infact, we wouldnt even have the concept of dark matter in science at all, if it wasnt for all the evidence.

So even tho we cant see or measure the dark matter, assuming that it exists is a reasonable and logical thing to do, its precisely not "faith" like you need to believe in God.

SDGundamX: I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof.



I dont think I misunderstood what you attempted to do, but I think you failed to show that scientists make the same kinds of leap-of-faith as religion does. My whole point about dark matter is that there IS evidence that strongly suggests that it exists, its not just about scientists throwing out a guess. Infact, we wouldnt even have the concept of dark matter in science at all, if it wasnt for all the evidence.

So even tho we cant see or measure the dark matter, assuming that it exists is a reasonable and logical thing to do, its precisely not "faith" like you need to believe in God.

@ponceleon (for a response to your Dark Matter questions see above)

First off, I'd like to thank you for a very interesting discussion. It is through such dialogue that we clarify our thoughts, and your responses have really helped me explore many different ideas.

I'd like to start out by explaining why I responded to your post in the first place. Your initial post called for the end of all religion. It seemed to be a gross overreaction to the clip. You seemed to be equating every single religious person with a fanatic Muslim willing to kill for his beliefs.

You very clearly place a high value on reason and logical thought. My initial purpose in posting, then, was to show you how illogical it is to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few individuals. You would not consider it reasonable to call for an end to Democracy simply because some people have started wars in the name of Democracy (see Lawdeedaw's post above). It is just as illogical to call for an end to all religion because some people have committed evil in the name of religion. Likewise, just because Sarah Palin blew some hot air on national TV about fruit flies, it doesn't logically follow that all religious people are against science. Or that they all want to convert you. That's another gross over-generalization. As a refutation, I provide the example of two of the worlds biggest religions--Buddhism and Hinduism--which co-exist peacefully with multiple other religions and do not try impose their teachings on those who don't voluntarily come seeking them.

So that was my original point, basically. Your initial call for an end to religion wasn't logical, reasonable, or even plausible. How could you accomplish it? By force? That would rob you of the moral high ground. By law? In the U.S., at least, you would face the problem that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Given the improbability of a religious-free world anytime in the near future (almost certainly not our lifetimes) wouldn't it be better to use our intellectual powers for figuring out how to get along? And how to deal humanely with those radicals and fundamentalists who refuse to try to get along or insist on imposing their views on others? Personally, I feel that is a much better use of our time and energy than trying to ban religion outright.

This will be my last post here. I'll let you have the last word on the matter. If you want to continue talking about this or other things, send me a profile reply. However, I'm very busy with work right now and might not be able to reply right away, so I apologize for that.

>> ^ponceleon:

@SGD Ah I think we are coming a bit closer together here, but you are backpeddling a bit.
There is a BIG difference between you telling me that it is MY job as a rational person to disprove the existance of God the Son and the Holy ghost, v. telling me that dark matter is unmeasurable.
You see, Dark Matter is based on actual calculations and rational deliberation which leads scientists to see that something is missing from their model. As it turns out, I'm willing to CONSIDER dark matter as a possibility because it is based on something thought out and observable (though itself it may not be). That said, I would not be surprised at all if it turns out to be bunk. But that's the great part of science, Dark Matter can turn out to be real or not real and NO SCIENTIST is going to FATWAH me for believing on either side. It's exactly as you say.
As for why religion needs to go, well it is exactly for the reason you state: they DO try to force their views on others. When Sarah Palin, champion of the religious nuts in this country, gets up and tells us that fruit fly research is "silly and pointless" I see that as highly dangerous and definitely something that needs to be addressed. Killing and threatening artists. Suicide Bombers, child-abuse cover-ups, intelligent design, Jesus camps, invading the west bank, female oppression, and good christians don't vote for Obama.... all great examples of how "good teachings" of a religion have been cast aside in favor of fear, hate mongering, and irrational behavior.
Religion has forced itself on human culture for all of our history and while some good has come of it, a great portion of the bad in the world can be traced back to someone listening to a magical being in their head (or as I often suspect, saying they do in order to sway uneducated masses).
So in conclusion, I think you are now a lot closer to me in what I mean (though I fall on the other side of the argument when it comes to the usefulness of religion), but I do think you backpedaled a bit. Dark Matter /= Jesus.

@BicycleRepairMan (and @ponceleon indirectly too)

I think you misunderstand what I was trying to do with that post. I had thought that ponceleon's objection of religion (and religious people) was "faith"--believing in something for which there is no "proof" (as defined as something that can be scientifically measured or tested) for their beliefs. I brought up dark matter to point out that science itself does not always have such proof. People (including scientists) don't just throw up their hands and go "oh well" just because there is no proof of something--particularly, as you pointed out, when reason suggests that said thing might possibly exist. For religious people, reason does suggest that a god or gods exist. Therefore, it seemed to me that ponceleon was applying a double-standard. It's okay for science to believe in things for which there is no proof (but which reason suggests exists) yet it isn't okay for religious people.

I'll address here one objection you might have to the above paragraph. You might say (and ponceleon most certainly would) that the belief in the existence of a deity or deities is not reasonable. I don't fault you at all for that point of view. It brings us back to my central point--that people interpret their experiences in the world in different ways. Perhaps you look around the world and see simply a collection of chaos that coincidentally happens to form pockets of order. Others see the very same world and interpret it as designed. Some might see it as something in between. The point I've been trying to make is that we cannot at this moment prove any one of those views is correct. In fact, it may be impossible to "prove" because it is so subjective--you basically need to "disprove" the other person's experiences. Try proving to someone that is afraid of roller coasters that they are in fact quite fun. Try proving to someone that their favorite flavor isn't rocky road but chocolate chip mint instead. And try proving to an atheist that gods exist, or proving to a believer that they don't.

>> ^SDGundamX:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/ponceleon" title="member since February 8th, 2008" class="profilelink">ponceleon
You demand proof in order to believe in a god or gods. Well, there is no proof of dark matter--only speculation.


No, thats not accurate. The whole reason we have to concept dark matter is because of evidence-based reasoning. The point about dark matter is that we dont know anything ABOUT it, except that its probably out there, because of the way the matter in the universe is behaving.

A simple analogy would be the finding of exoplanets (planets around stars different then our own) until recently, noone had actually photographed one, we only knew they were there because they caused slight alterations in the light from the stars they orbit. in other words we knew of them because of their effect on their parent star. The same thing can be said of dark matter: We know its there because of the way it affects the universe.

If we were to ask for similar evidence of the existence of gods, a good start would perhaps be a huge natural disaster that only spared the devout, for example. If there was a consistent trend that those people who prayed seemed always to be spared from disasters where everybody else died, we could draw "dark matter"-like conclusion about god, we couldnt be 100% sure, but we could say that there seems to be a god who likes being prayed to.