Far out cosmology: Any explanation for dark matter? (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, September 05, 2016, 13:11 (3000 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Gravitational evidence says its there, but what is it? We don't know what energy particles are involved:-http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physics-confronts-its-heart-of-darkness/-QUOTE: "The latest, most sensitive searches for the particles thought to make up dark matter—the invisible stuff that may comprise 85 percent of the mass in the cosmos—have found nothing. Called WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles), these subatomic shrinking violets may simply be better at hiding than physicists thought when they first predicted them more than 30 years ago. Alternatively, they may not exist, which would mean that something is woefully amiss in the underpinnings of how we try to make sense of the universe." (My bold)-QUOTE: "Whatever dark matter is, it is not accounted for in the Standard Model of particle physics, a thoroughly-tested “theory of almost everything” forged in the 1970s that explains all known particles and all known forces other than gravity. Find the identity of dark matter and you illuminate a new path forward to a deeper understanding of the universe—at least, that is what physicists hope.” (My bold)-As always, thank you for your integrity in posting articles which often seem to run counter to your own arguments. Here we have physicists acknowledging that the Standard Model is unable to account for gravity and 85% of the mass in the cosmos. 15% apparently = "almost everything", and by definition we have no idea what or how many unknown particles exist. The current “pattern”, which earlier you said “strongly suggests there is a mind behind it”, may therefore be “woefully amiss”. But of course, no matter what patterns are found, you will argue that they strongly suggest the mind of God! You may be right…you may be wrong. Who knows? As somebody wrote only recently, in defence of a different hypothesis from your own: “There are VAST gaps in our knowledge, and that is precisely why the rest of the stuff HAS to be theoretical imagination, and why my hypothesis is no more and no less likely than any other.”