Talk:Dark matter: Difference between revisions
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
:Nothing can be done about this I think. The fact that "dark-X" is just a recent and unsubstantiated metonymy for unexplained observations is just lost on the authors of this stuff, they've blown past that to virtual careers in the stuff. To be cheerful about it, reflect that ultimately science does produce truth and phlogistications on aether like stuff are subsequently the source of much mirth. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.190.243|72.228.190.243]] ([[User talk:72.228.190.243|talk]]) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC) |
:Nothing can be done about this I think. The fact that "dark-X" is just a recent and unsubstantiated metonymy for unexplained observations is just lost on the authors of this stuff, they've blown past that to virtual careers in the stuff. To be cheerful about it, reflect that ultimately science does produce truth and phlogistications on aether like stuff are subsequently the source of much mirth. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.190.243|72.228.190.243]] ([[User talk:72.228.190.243|talk]]) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC) |
||
::Also it's false to say that there's a theory of dark-whatever, a lot of speculation and conjecture doesn't add up to a coherent theory. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.190.243|72.228.190.243]] ([[User talk:72.228.190.243|talk]]) 08:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) |
|||
== What is mass-energy? == |
== What is mass-energy? == |
Revision as of 08:18, 29 January 2013
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dark matter article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Dark matter. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Dark matter at the Reference desk. |
![]() | Dark matter was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Dark matter is very different from current theory, and vast majority may be baryonic.
"... instead of the relationship between observable light and stellar mass being universal, it varies between different types of galaxies — with some older galaxies having three times the mass suggested by the light they give off..."
"'The question of how you should turn light from a galaxy into a prediction of its mass has been hotly debated but up until now nobody has been able to kill off the idea that there's a simple and universal way to convert observed light into mass,' said Dr Cappellari. 'We now think we've done that by eliminating the 'fuzziness' in models caused by dark matter. It's exciting because it reveals how much more there is to discover about how galaxies, and the early Universe itself, evolved."
"The team's analysis means that all current models, which assumed for decades that the light we observe from a galaxy can be used to infer its stellar mass, will have to be revised. It also suggests that researchers have a new riddle to ponder: exactly how galaxies forming so early in the life of the Universe got to be massive so fast."
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/120425.html http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120501211411.htm
Quoted from the same article, one is the university source, the other is a notable science website. There are dozens more available through a quick search.
Basically, they've proven that there is absolutely no predictable relationship between luminosity and mass, and they contend "dark matter" is most likely just "matter" that we can't see from Earth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.33.136 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- You say "they've proven that there is absolutely no predictable relationship between luminosity and mass". I don't see where that comes from - the study seems to conclude that the relationship is more complex than was previously assumed, not that there is no relationship at all. I also can't see anything in these references that supports your assertion that the study concludes that dark matter is mostly baryonic. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'll second Gandalf61's comment. They've adjusted the old model for estimating galaxy mass - a straight luminosity-to-mass ratio - and made a more complex model where different classes of galaxy have different luminosity-to-mass ratio. That has nothing to do with dark matter - and the vast majority of mass in all of these galaxies is still dark matter (dark matter is about 90% of galactic mass, and the updated estimates change by at most a factor of 3).
- The noteworthy elements from this work were a) an improved understanding of how luminosity relates to galaxy type (obvious in hindsight; galaxies with more star formation for a given mass will have more bright but short-lived stars), and b) improved techniques for measuring the mass and mass distribution within galaxies (by measuring the velocity distributions of stars at different locations within the galaxies, if I understand correctly).
- Per Gandalf61, these releases say nothing at all about the nature of dark matter and very little about its distribution, so it's puzzling that you'd cite them as support for your position. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
acceptance
I think it's fair to say that the theory is generally accepted, but this article lays it out like dark matter is in the same kind of "generally accepted" as relativity and evolution.
I am reading articles every now and then about some observations failing to go hand in hand with predictions in regards to dark matter. But this article reads as if dark matter theory is a fait accompli, we are just awaiting confirmation on the particle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.76.196.150 (talk) 06:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done about this I think. The fact that "dark-X" is just a recent and unsubstantiated metonymy for unexplained observations is just lost on the authors of this stuff, they've blown past that to virtual careers in the stuff. To be cheerful about it, reflect that ultimately science does produce truth and phlogistications on aether like stuff are subsequently the source of much mirth. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 10:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also it's false to say that there's a theory of dark-whatever, a lot of speculation and conjecture doesn't add up to a coherent theory. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
What is mass-energy?
"Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy."
I checked the source which this phrase links to and there is nothing about the differentiation between matter and mass-energy. Dark matter is said to constitute 23% of matter. So I think this phrase is inaccurate and needs to be fixed or else one should choose a different scientific source for it.Louigi Verona (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll change it to energy density. As for the source, it's fine. Waleswatcher (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)