Dark Matter

Hi All

I note an earlier thread on this topic here. I too have puzzled over this idea and would like to put it up again for any responses.

I am not scientifically trained, nor with any expertise in physics. I am a writer who reads about such topics in New Scientist and so on. So these are all the wonderings of a layman - they are certainly more poetic than technical, but here goes.

The current 'model of the universe' holds that dark matter 'accounts for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.' (Wikipedia.) Furthermore, we are told that Dark Matter is 'not directly observable'. Its existence is inferred from measurements of the rate of expansion of the observable universe. It is described as 'non-baryonic' meaning in layman's terms 'not consisting of atoms'.

Well pardon me, but I can't help having the feeling that this opens a can of worms of cosmic proportions. If in fact a large percentage of the Universe consists of something we can't even detect or see but only infer, then I would have thought that the 'scientific materialist' picture of the universe is in pretty dire straights. After all, the very ground of scientific materialism is that what we can detect and measure with our senses and instruments IS the sole reality. Now we are told that he existence of most of the stuff around us, by weight, can't even be detected. So doesn't this leave room for other kinds of beings or entities or intelligences that might originate or dwell in the same unknowable and un-measurable dimension? (I won't even hazard a guess what these might be.)

There is an expression called the God of the Gaps, referring to 'the role of God as being confined to the "gaps" in scientific explanations of nature.' Of course we are told that with the triumphal march of science, etc, the gaps are nowadays pretty small. However it would seem to me that with the current state of cosmology - dark matter being only one of several very mystifying developments - the gaps have suddenly gotten an awful lot bigger. Big enough to contain entire other dimensions of reality, one would think. (I am not looking for a definite answer. I think "We don't know" is actually OK in this context, but would be interested in any thoughts.)

Whether or not it's materialistic isn't much relevant.

Hi All

I note an earlier thread on this topic here. I too have puzzled over this idea and would like to put it up again for any responses.

I am not scientifically trained, nor with any expertise in physics. I am a writer who reads about such topics in New Scientist and so on. So these are all the wonderings of a layman - they are certainly more poetic than technical, but here goes.

The current 'model of the universe' holds that dark matter 'accounts for the vast majority of the mass in the observable universe.' (Wikipedia.) Furthermore, we are told that Dark Matter is 'not directly observable'. Its existence is inferred from measurements of the rate of expansion of the observable universe. It is described as 'non-baryonic' meaning in layman's terms 'not consisting of atoms'.

Well pardon me, but I can't help having the feeling that this opens a can of worms of cosmic proportions. If in fact a large percentage of the Universe consists of something we can't even detect or see but only infer, then I would have thought that the 'scientific materialist' picture of the universe is in pretty dire straights. After all, the very ground of scientific materialism is that what we can detect and measure with our senses and instruments IS the sole reality. Now we are told that he existence of most of the stuff around us, by weight, can't even be detected. So doesn't this leave room for other kinds of beings or entities or intelligences that might originate or dwell in the same unknowable and un-measurable dimension? (I won't even hazard a guess what these might be.)

There is an expression called the God of the Gaps, referring to 'the role of God as being confined to the "gaps" in scientific explanations of nature.' Of course we are told that with the triumphal march of science, etc, the gaps are nowadays pretty small. However it would seem to me that with the current state of cosmology - dark matter being only one of several very mystifying developments - the gaps have suddenly gotten an awful lot bigger. Big enough to contain entire other dimensions of reality, one would think. (I am not looking for a definite answer. I think "We don't know" is actually OK in this context, but would be interested in any thoughts.)

This is more suited for the philosophy of science board, but I the relationship between metaphysics and science can make certain topics too close to call.

In the philosophy of science a proposition is considered to be a scientific theory if and only if it can be empirically verified and tested. A proposition that can only be verified by logic is considered to be a scientific hypothesis. Dark matter and dark energy are both considered to be scientific hypotheses because they are only able to verified by logic, and logic has its limits. Science places empirical verification as the higher standard to something that is verified by logic alone.

Dark matter and dark energy helps to explain the very slight gaps in the theory of relativity. All of the tests and observations to date have confirmed the theory of relativity, and all of the current data confirms the dark matter hypothesis. Until science consolidates, (which it is very close to doing) it is a provisional process that is used to ultimately find the objective truth. Science approaches knowledge as a practical concept.

God, whether we speak of metaphysics or science, is a failed hypothesis. Some conceptions of God are logically decidable (theism and divine revelation or interventionism), but other conceptions of God (deism and the first cause argument) are logically undecidable, and therefore logically invalid. A sentence does not state a proposition if it is neither logically decidable nor empirically verifiable.

Well, actually scientific hypotheses are verified by observation, not logic. Logic can be valid for arguments that postulate that the moon is in fact green cheese. It is observation that verifies that the moon is not made of green cheese, but rather is pretty much made of a rocky substance.

Dark matter does not so much explain the gaps in the theory of relativity, but rather the gaps in how much matter exists in the universe. According to theory (I forget specifics, and I am lazy to look it up right now) visible matter cannot alone cannot account for what is observed in the universe (I think it has to do with gravity holding together galaxies).

Its not that God is logically invalid, it is that observation cannot verify or deny God's existence or nonexistence. Logic's job is to show that conclusions follow from the premises. Now whether or not those conclusions are factual or not is outside the real of logic.

The fact that the moon is made of a rocky substance is not a hypothesis. Dark matter is a hypothesis because it cannot be directly observed. A proposition can only be verified by the use of logic if it cannot be directly observed. That's why they call it a hypothesis.

The God proposition cannot be empirically observed, and so we are forced to fall back on logic.The God hypothesis is logically invalid because it can be logically deduced as false (theism and divine interventionism), or it's not logically decidable (deism and the first cause argument). This renders the conceptions of God and any other supernatural agents as either logical falsehoods or meaningless propositions. Parsimony also demands that supernatural agency be rejected until it can be logically verified, or empirically verified as true.

A hypothesis has nothing to do with whether or not something can be directly observed or not. A hypothesis is nothing but a tentative statement to explain an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation. The moon is mad of green cheese is a hypothesis. Of course, further observation would deny it, but there is no reason why that cannot be a hypothesis to be investigated.

You are right that God cannot be empirically observed, but the God hypothesis is not logically invalid, it just cannot be observed. Since it cannot be observed it is not really a hypothesis in the first place. So the God hypothesis is really an issue with language. The idea that God exists is a notion or a metaphysical explanation, but one can logically argue for the existence of God.

very slight gaps in the theory of relativity

With your attention to detail you have missed the point of the debate....Is there cause to believe that this invisible matter and energy is evidence of the possibility of parallel universes, vibrating in a different spectrum?

I note, Hue-man, your statement:

It just so happens these 'very slight gaps' are now thought to account for 80% of the Universe. So please re-consider your use of the term 'slight'. I think it is fair to say that anything which is deemed to comprise 80% of the universe could not be realistically described as 'slight'.

Which just reinforces my point about the "God of the Gaps". When I made this point, I was far more interested in 'gaps' than 'God' - theorising about 'God' does not interest me much.

What I was driving at is the fact that so much of the Universe is now held to be composed of something which, without too much of a stretch, could be described as 'occult', where 'occult' means 'hidden'.

Incidentally, and I digress here, does anyone see the parallel between 'dark matter/energy' and the 'luminiferous aether' which one hundred years ago was thought to be the 'carrier' of light waves?

Our knowledge of dark matter is virtually nil so how can you be so certain that this mass is not a reflection of other universes.To be so certain! is there no multi verses? have they dark matter? When science can not answer certain questions its only right that we speculate.

I wouldn't say that our knowledge of dark matter is nill, but it is certainly limited at this point. I am certain that this mass is not a reflection of other universes because it has nothing to do with the physics of parallel universes.

Also parallel universes are not always synonymous with multiple universes. The parallel universes "theory" is the belief that there is another universe for every "quantum indeterminacy". Therefore, there is a universe where I am typing the very opposite of what I am typing right now. There's a universe where Islam has dominated the entire world. There's a universe where Columbus discovered Australia, etc. etc. It's ridiculously silly, but what the hell.

Multiple universe simply mean that there are more universes than our universe, and that all of these universes are related to a single event in the remote past. It is believed that every universe pops out of another universe; maybe through the singularities created by black holes or some other force. The possible confirmation of M-theory may be enough to believe that these other universes exist, but I don't believe in it at this point.

I believed the parallel universe examples you gave where well known examples of an infinite universe not parallel universes.Ive never heard of speculated universes occupied by earthly creatures alone.
Dark matter is an effect not a visible entity and for you to say it does not exist in another space time continuum for certain is a very brave statement.Most of modern cosmology starts with a novel thought and progresses with theoretical examination and hopefully with observable evidence.