Far out cosmology: Does dark matter exist? 2 (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, November 26, 2016, 12:49 (2707 days ago) @ David Turell

On Thursday I replied to the following:

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/cosmic-coincidences

QUOTE: The very early universe was dominated by dark matter. “At that time, dark matter density was 95 orders of magnitude larger than the density of dark energy,” says Nicolao Fornengo at the University of Turin, Italy.

Dhw: We don’t even know what dark matter is. You might as well say the universe was dominated by something or the other. How the heck can anyone know that the density of something or the other was 95 orders of magnitude greater than the density of another something or the other? I can’t help feeling that in the next fifty, hundred, thousand years, scientists will have come up with very different observations and explanations.

It appears that I’m not alone in my scepticism:

DAVID: Another voice stating that dark matter is a side effect of sticking with current Einstein theories, and with an other interpretation of what is seen, dark matter is not needed:
https://aeon.co/ideas/has-dogma-derailed-the-scientific-search-for-dark-matter?utm_sour...

QUOTE: "According to mainstream researchers, the vast majority of the matter in the Universe is invisible: it consists of dark-matter particles that do not interact with radiation and cannot be seen through any telescope. The case for dark matter is regarded as so overwhelming that its existence is often reported as fact. Lately, though, cracks of doubt have started to appear. In July, the LUX experiment in South Dakota came up empty in its search for dark particles – the latest failure in a planet-wide, decades-long effort to find them. Some cosmic surveys also suggest that dark particles cannot be there, which is especially confounding since astronomical observations were the original impetus for the dark-matter hypothesis.”

David’s comment: Dark matter should not be dogma. More observations are needed. Scientific facts are not the result of a vote of a majority, but of observation and logical conclusions.

Hear, hear! The big bang should not be dogma either. Theoretical physics is becoming as riddled with fantasy and dogma as religion. Mind you, I can almost hear Tony (= balancemaintained) saying the same about evolution, and of course some of Darwin’s hypotheses (random mutations, gradualism) are very shaky indeed, but common descent still seems solid to me. Anyway, many thanks for the above article, which neatly restores the balance.