Talk:Dark matter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 4, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
January 28, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 11, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Mr notaforum then add more alternatives officially[edit]

Solution / Brane Smoothing (permanently forced fundamental universal flatness)[edit]

Dark Matter is neither a force nor a "particle". Homogeneity (at large scales) is fundamental in the Universe, all other by products of it are secondary. Dark Matter is the smoothing out of the Universal brane. Read about the branes. Dark Matter is simple and boring. Wise people demand problems and invent problems when they cannot find. You will NEVER discover any Dark Matter particle. Never! It is a type of Universal brane correction. (Even Dark Energy is the opposite, it cancels the non homogeneity of the void, but then causes spatial expansion, also an eternal brane smoothing/correction. Sometimes things are simple. "Stupid" people are wiser for not inventing fake problems, and "wise" people are stupid for not accepting the data! The Universal flatness does NOT occur from other factors because it IS the most fundamental universal permanent fact! Equilibrium is FORCED to balance homogeneously and NOT the other way around. You should also inverse the labels moron and savvy you give to people. Then you might understand Dark Matter, but it's so simple and boring, that you might want to create a non existent problem to waste your time.

"Higgs waves" (dark matter) may cause some statistical differences in the background noise created by the void itself, but the threshold of particle potentiality must be exceeded to cause statistically significant effects. (many different sourced background noises exist, so we have to be analytical)

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: sometimes we go down dead ends[edit]

I object to the first sentence of this article: "Dark matter is an unidentified type of matter." No, "dark matter" is the name we have given to a set of phenomenological anomalies in physics, most prominently the discrepancy between the rotation rates of galaxies vs. the strength of the gravitational force that we predict from the estimated amount of baryonic matter. We do not know what causes this anomaly. Dr. Tyson agrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4x6N0uAkTQ "We don't know if it's made of matter. It could be a profound misnomer, sending people off into thought directions that might not be the right path." Yes, that is what this Wikipedia article is helping to do by espousing a specific hypothesized solution to this anomaly. There is no concrete scientific basis for claiming, as this article does in its first sentence, that dark matter is, in fact, a type of matter and not something else entirely. And the source for this claim is a New York Times article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:6000:8:8071:4A74:7593:7A8A (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it is more correct to say that "dark matter" refers to a set of explanations for the phenomenological anomalies, not the anomalies themselves. There are other possible explanations for the anomalies - such as Modified Newtonian dynamics - that do not require additional matter. Some of these are mentioned in the "Alternative theories" section, and several alternatives are described in separate articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I've added "whose existence would explain a number of otherwise puzzling astronomical observations" to the lede. The article does cover alternative theories.--agr (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps since there are alternative theories, the heading should clearly state this is a theory with some observations that support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.20.10.219 (talk) 06:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion re the lede...i.e. Date of Discovery![edit]

The lede says nothing about the date that Dark Matter was discovered, which is a basic fact that readers who aren't post-graduate physics students might like to know. (The article is generally very good, and this isn't a major complaint.) Reading further into the article, the first section indicates that the idea of Dark Matter surfaced gradually over decades, but nevertheless has this: "An influential paper presented Rubin's results in 1980.[35] Rubin found that most galaxies must contain about six times as much dark as visible mass;[36] thus, by around 1980 the apparent need for dark matter was widely recognized as a major unsolved problem in astronomy."

I am not going to edit the article myself, because every edit I have ever made on wikipedia has been immediately reverted on some flimsy pretext, but my suggestion is that the lede itself should contain a statement to the effect that (rephrasing the statement quoted above) "The apparent need for dark matter was widely recognized as a major unsolved problem in astronomy by around 1980." (Otherwise, a very informative article.)77Mike77 (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Support removal of reference Sharpe, Dan (2017)[edit]

Banedon (talk · contribs) removed the reference Sharpe, Dan (2017). "Exploring Composite Dark Matter with SIDM and CDM". UK: International Research Journal of Pure and Applied Physics. ISBN 1520306318. ISSN 2055-009X.  from the article, and this removal was reverted by Plantsurfer (talk · contribs). Reading the reference, I tend to agree with Banedon - it is a very poor quality, uninformative and misleading reference. Some quotes will illustrate this:

"... all it takes is kinetic energy and pressure to achieve cold fusion with protons"
"... it’s important to recognize that negative energy is not photons (possibly a dark photon) ..."
"A proton with a negative polarity potential would have similar poles reversed, such as negative energy, negative thermodynamics and negative electrodynamics, without a full inversion that results in an antiproton."
"Therefore, negative atoms (dark proton variants) would pass through ordinary matter with little to no resistance"

All nonsense. I agree with the removal of the reference, so I have removed it again. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)