• Beacon@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    2 months ago

    Headline is waaaay too overstated. A computer simulation model showed that an arrangement of dark matter as described would create an output that matches some of the things we observe in reality. But that’s SUPER far from scientists declaring that this is how the galaxy actually is.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s so overstated, the existence of dark matter hasn’t even been proven yet.

      • kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        I thought the existence of something out there was pretty well understood. We just didn’t know exactly what it is and so it’s called “dark matter”

      • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Dark matter is like x and y in a quadratic equation in maths. We don’t know what it is but we know it is there. It effecting the equation such that you are getting a result.

        We know there is something, it is effecting the gravity around it to result the apparent motion of the stuff around it. But we don’t know what it is or how it is working.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I just read that we understand only about 15% of the universe, and that 15% number doesn’t really have a lot of confidence either.

        In other words, we don’t know shit.

        • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          All we have are models and some of them work really well to explain some things.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The more i learn the more i realise most of science is this way.

      I was already adult when i realised “the big bang theory” is exactly what it implies. A possible theory and not at all a fact.

      • village604@adultswim.fan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You’re confusing scientific theory with scientific hypothesis.

        A hypothesis is an educated guess that doesn’t have facts backing it yet.

        A theory is a hypothesis that has undergone rigorous testing and has strong, repeatable evidence backing it.

        • podian@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months ago

          I believe a lot of the confusion results from forming conclusions based on what is presented in headlines, both in media and journals, instead of reading the usually much more modest full text.

          Shitty attention economy at work. Brain rot started a loooong time ago.

          • village604@adultswim.fan
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            A law or principal is a single proven statement while a theory is a collection of proven statements.

            Basically, a law is how things work while a theory is why things work.

          • athatet@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            I think it’s that Laws are proven to be true whereas Theories just have not yet been proven false.

            • village604@adultswim.fan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 months ago

              Not quite. Laws are a single proven statement and theories are a collection of laws used to explain why something is the way it is.

              The Big Bang Theory uses the laws of physics to justify it.

      • ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        … that’s not how it works, though. In science, a theory is a proven hypothesis that can be used to make predictions and successfully does so. Just because we don’t know what happened in the very first fraction of an instant doesn’t mean the theory (that the universe was in a very hot, compact and dense state that rapidly expanded out and formed the universe as we know it today) isn’t correct, just that it’s incomplete.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I did mix up the terminology and i have no excuse except real life exhaustion.

          But does an incomplete theory and unproven facts not kinda be the same thing? People believe “first, there was nothing, then it exploded” but the truth is we don’t know that.

          Then there is also all the stuff JW telescope discovered about the early universe that we didn’t expect, showing how imperfect our knowledge is.

          • ImWaitingForRetcons@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            That’s not the case- an incomplete theory breaks down at some point, but it still has explanatory power. BBT has a lot of evidence, and we’ve made a lot of predictions using it that have been proven. Of course, you’re still correct in saying that JWST has shown numerous discrepancies, but that shows that it can be superseded by a better theory- an analogy would be Maxwell’s equations are good for most situations, but QED is the more complete theory that works even when Maxwell’s equations don’t.

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          As i have said elsewhere, i regret mixing up the terminology, which frankly i am quite embarrassed about.

          I am not refuting the knowledge that the universe expands. I was speaking on the common anecdote that “in the beginning there was nothing and then it exploded and thats how the universe began” which is how it was initially explained to me and what the majority of people seem to understand and take for absolute truth.

    • thinkercharmercoderfarmer@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      I like to imagine there’s a group of dark matter physicists out there trying to explain why their models of the universe are 5% off, and coming up with the notion of photons and the theory of photo-energetic matter. We’re the oddballs in this neighborhood.

    • MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s a stand-in for the lack of a better understanding currently. No one has detected dark matter in our solar system yet. It’s all just deviations from how huge amounts of matter should behave according to our formulas. Yes, Dark Matter is well established; because it’s convenient. But assuming some invisible existence to explain a lack of understanding is not science, that’s a religion.

    • partofthevoice@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s a freaky thing to consider if you believe in some divine nature like the soul, or if you believe that you’re a conscious agent independent of your environment. With these beliefs, you position yourself as an “observer” of the universe… such a position costs you observability of the contextual processes which led to your being.

      What if, instead, you’re a giant mount of cells that evolved to interact with your environment? What if your self is more of a relationship with nature than it is a static identity? From this angle, we should expect that we’re fighting an uphill battle when we want to learn about the nature of being in this universe. Most likely, we can not perceive of things which we had no necessity to perceive at any point in our ancestral lineage.

      Dark matter is spooky, but only because we are beings of spookiness. We decide what is spooky and project that experience into the empirical reality of our dwelling.

      • rollin@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        2 months ago

        anything we don’t understand yet, that can be god… it used to be thunder, earthquakes, now it’s vast sheets of lifeless matter flooping around our intergalactic neighbourhood - progress I guess? 😁

          • rollin@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            2 months ago

            well yes exactly … in that realm of the unknown, our imaginations can run riot

            it wasn’t that long ago that there were still dark corners of the earth - well, more like vast tracts of unexplored terrain - in the Amazon, deep in mountain ranges, or in icy tundra.

            There dragons did roam, whilst flying demons did dart overhead, their ungodly shrieks turning the hearts of the bravest men to jello.

            There are no secrets on the earth any more, so we have to look elsewhere to satisfy our lust for meaning and importance.

  • quick_snail@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 months ago

    our neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, is moving toward us at a speed of about 100 kilometers per second.

    Uhhhhhh