ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dark energy , dark fluid , dark matter

Reply
Old 7th December 2018, 12:34 PM   #81
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
This statement:

"I don't know the maths"

Makes this statement worthless:

"Cosmologists seem to be tying themselves in knots by trying to shoehorn observations into existing theory."


Unless and until you can do the maths, you're just guessing.


Oh, and:

It's all just a model.

The model is never actually going to be the thing modeled. The object of the exercise is to arrive at something that consistently, accurately describes whatever it is you're studying.
It's not all just a model. People dream up models all the time. You're supposed to test it to see if it works. All the tests regarding DM have failed to say what it is. The scientists should just say, 'we don't know and we're working on it'.
Diablo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 12:36 PM   #82
Diablo
Muse
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 576
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
Dark matter as hypothesized in not unknown, it is a WIMP like a nutrino, just much more massive.
It's very WIMPY indeed, and very massive, and probably has pink appendagies.
Diablo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 12:39 PM   #83
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
It's not all just a model. People dream up models all the time. You're supposed to test it to see if it works. All the tests regarding DM have failed to say what it is. The scientists should just say, 'we don't know and we're working on it'.
Yes, that's what science is: you make hypotheses, test them, refine the theory and try to find the answer. Sometimes it takes centuries. But the fact of the matter is that our theories of gravity, which work pretty fantastically well otherwise, don't seem to match what we see in galaxies and indicate that there's 10x more mass than what we see. Maybe the theory's wrong, maybe there's something we haven't thought of, but the point is that one possibility is that there's some sort of matter that essentially doesn't interact with EM in a way we see, and would account for the missing mass.

I don't see the problem you and others have with this tentative explanation.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 12:54 PM   #84
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yes, that's what science is: you make hypotheses, test them, refine the theory and try to find the answer. Sometimes it takes centuries. But the fact of the matter is that our theories of gravity, which work pretty fantastically well otherwise, don't seem to match what we see in galaxies and indicate that there's 10x more mass than what we see.
As I understand it, our theory of gravity is pretty much spot on. It's our theory of matter that's got a big gap in it. The current theory holds that massive stuff is also visible in other ways. What we've found is that there's massive stuff out there that's consistent with our theory of gravity but doesn't fit our theory of stuff being visible other than by it's gravitational influence. We're not looking for a better theory of gravity, we're looking for a better theory of massive particles.

In a sense, it's the success and completeness of our theory of gravity that leads us to the conclusion that what we're observing is some form of dark matter, rather than some flaw in our theory of gravity.

Diablo and baron seem to have some objection to the notion that we're still in the process of identifying the detailed characteristics of the massive stuff we've observed; but so far they haven't really explained what that objection is, or why it matters.

Last edited by theprestige; 7th December 2018 at 12:56 PM.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 12:56 PM   #85
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As I understand it, our theory of gravity is pretty much spot on. It's our theory of matter that's got a big gap in it. The current theory holds that massive stuff is also visible in other ways. What we've found is that there's massive stuff out there that's consistent with our theory of gravity but doesn't fit our theory of stuff being visible other than by it's gravitational influence. We're not looking for a better theory of gravity, we're looking for a better theory of massive particles.
Thanks for the correction. I suck at explaining things sometimes.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:05 PM   #86
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Diablo and baron seem to have some objection to the notion that we're still in the process of identifying the detailed characteristics of the massive stuff we've observed; but so far they haven't really explained what that objection is, or why it matters.
We haven't observed any 'massive stuff 'at all. Nothing has been directly observed (and I mean nothing, not nothing, you have to be careful when talking about space). Instead, unexpected observations have resulted in the postulation of invisible matter, not just black or dark, but actually invisible. I don't have any objection to the investigation of whether or not this is true, obviously, I simply don't believe it is, and that opinion appears to be the cause of much outrage.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #87
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 76,326
Originally Posted by baron View Post
We haven't observed any 'massive stuff 'at all.
You're not a real physicist, are you?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:23 PM   #88
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,503
Quote:
Nothing has been directly observed (and I mean nothing, not nothing, you have to be careful when talking about space). Instead, unexpected observations have resulted in the postulation of invisible matter, not just black or dark, but actually invisible
.

Then you need an alternative mechanism to explain the gravitational lensing seen from the Bullet Cluster, and elsewhere.
There are also observations of the 'Cosmic Web'. Essentially the filamentary arrangement of matter throughout the cosmos. Models attempting to duplicate this filamentary structure only work with the inclusion of dark matter.

The Network Behind the Cosmic Web
Coutinho, B. C. et al.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.03236
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 02:27 PM   #89
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You're not a real physicist, are you?
Have any contribution whatsoever to make to this thread that's not a personal attack?
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 02:54 PM   #90
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Another blogger’s take on this paper: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...and-cosmology/
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:05 PM   #91
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by baron View Post
We haven't observed any 'massive stuff 'at all.
Actually, we have. Mass is observed by its gravitational influences.

Quote:
Nothing has been directly observed.
What do you mean by "directly" observed here? What's a "direct" observation? Photons impinging on optic nerves?

Instead, unexpected observations have resulted in the postulation of invisible matter, not just black or dark, but actually invisible.[/quote]
The gravitic effects are highly visible.

Quote:
I don't have any objection to the investigation of whether or not this is true, obviously, I simply don't believe it is, and that opinion appears to be the cause of much outrage.
You don't believe what is true?

You don't believe the observations are true?

You don't believe the observations indicate gravitic influence?

You don't believe the gravitic influence necessary requires mass?

You don't believe that mass can exist without being "directly" observable?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:08 PM   #92
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Good to see the discussion has moved on to DM; sad to see it’s not well understood.

Dark: does not interact electromagnetically. Like neutrinos.

Matter: behaves like mass, seems to behave like mass in Newton’s classical physics, and Einstein’s GR.

Consistent: from the third acoustic peak in the CMB spectrum to the motions of stars, gas, and dust in galaxies, with lensing, cluster dynamics, and much else besides.

WIMPs? None detected yet. Axions? Likewise. MACHOs? They exist, but nowhere near enough. PBHs? Not really feasible, inconsistent with observations.

Alternative theories of gravity? Lots of ideas have been proposed and investigated, but all have serious problems with consistency with observations.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:11 PM   #93
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,503
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Another blogger’s take on this paper: https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...and-cosmology/
And Sabine Hossenfelder's take on it;

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/20...zztzf9STj4mKtw
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:14 PM   #94
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Bump.
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
OK, one at a time.

DM: a term used to describe something, observed in several different astrophysical regimes, which is consistent with a form of mass (as defined in GR) that interacts with other forms of mass via gravitation only.
Maybe I missed it, but no one, so far, has disagreed with this; baron? Diablo?
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:15 PM   #95
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
And Sabine Hossenfelder's take on it;

https://backreaction.blogspot.com/20...zztzf9STj4mKtw
Old news ... I posted a link to that blog post some time ago.
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:18 PM   #96
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Actually, we have. Mass is observed by its gravitational influences.
The gravitational influences have been observed, not the DM.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What do you mean by "directly" observed here? What's a "direct" observation? Photons impinging on optic nerves?
Why are people so desperate to fail to understand such a simple point? If you see me banging my head against the wall and pieces of brick flying off due to the sheer frustration, then that's a direct observation of me. If you're on the other side of the wall and witness only the flying pieces of brick then that's an indirect observation of me. And who knows, it might not be me at all.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The gravitic effects are highly visible.
Yes they are.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
You don't believe what is true?

You don't believe the observations are true?

You don't believe the observations indicate gravitic influence?

You don't believe the gravitic influence necessary requires mass?

You don't believe that mass can exist without being "directly" observable?
I don't believe DM exists. What the..?
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"

Last edited by baron; 7th December 2018 at 03:20 PM.
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:19 PM   #97
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Bump.

Maybe I missed it, but no one, so far, has disagreed with this; baron? Diablo?
Nope, I don't disagree.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:22 PM   #98
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,503
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Old news ... I posted a link to that blog post some time ago.
Whoops, sorry.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:24 PM   #99
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Why are people so desperate to fail to understand such a simple point? If you see me banging my head against the wall and pieces of brick flying off due to the sheer frustration, then that's a direct observation of me. If you're on the other side of the wall and witness only the flying pieces of brick then that's an indirect observation of me. And who knows, it might not be me at all.
It might not be you, but we're definitely observing some kind of brickbreaker.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:27 PM   #100
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by baron View Post
I don't believe DM exists. What the..?
Something is causing gravitational effects. We're trying to figure out what that thing is, what its other properties are, and how it fits into/changes our current model of the universe. You don't believe the thing exists. "What the..?", indeed.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:29 PM   #101
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,503
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Good to see the discussion has moved on to DM; sad to see it’s not well understood.

Dark: does not interact electromagnetically. Like neutrinos.

Matter: behaves like mass, seems to behave like mass in Newton’s classical physics, and Einstein’s GR.

Consistent: from the third acoustic peak in the CMB spectrum to the motions of stars, gas, and dust in galaxies, with lensing, cluster dynamics, and much else besides.

WIMPs? None detected yet. Axions? Likewise. MACHOs? They exist, but nowhere near enough. PBHs? Not really feasible, inconsistent with observations.

Alternative theories of gravity? Lots of ideas have been proposed and investigated, but all have serious problems with consistency with observations.
Indeed. DM seems to be still the best explanation, such as it is. Various flavours of MOND have been proposed, but my understanding is that a fair few of those flavours have taken a kicking recently, from the neutron star merger GWs and subsequent EM detections. Sometimes we have to accept that we don't know everything, and there is no reason why we should. Shouldn't stop us theorising and searching. Even null results provide constraints.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:31 PM   #102
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
It might not be you, but we're definitely observing some kind of brickbreaker.
No, unfortunately it's me.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:37 PM   #103
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Something is causing gravitational effects. We're trying to figure out what that thing is, what its other properties are, and how it fits into/changes our current model of the universe. You don't believe the thing exists. "What the..?", indeed.
There you go, I don't believe it exists. That's all I'm saying. You formulate an equation to describe how a wheeled widget negotiates a track. You successfully predict the movement of ten other widgets using the equation. Then you discover another 100 widgets and they're whizzing around all over the place in direct contravention to your maths. Essentially you've got a couple of choices; postulate an invisible widget magnet handing in the air or something, I don't know, or consider that your original equation needs a bit of work.

If you'd like a less technical explanation let me know.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:45 PM   #104
jonesdave116
Master Poster
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 2,503
Originally Posted by baron View Post
There you go, I don't believe it exists. That's all I'm saying. You formulate an equation to describe how a wheeled widget negotiates a track. You successfully predict the movement of ten other widgets using the equation. Then you discover another 100 widgets and they're whizzing around all over the place in direct contravention to your maths. Essentially you've got a couple of choices; postulate an invisible widget magnet handing in the air or something, I don't know, or consider that your original equation needs a bit of work.

If you'd like a less technical explanation let me know.
Sorry, but that is complete guff. It is easily shown that if visible matter were all there was, then galaxies should fly apart. We have observations from gravitational lensing that show a mismatch between the visible matter and the strongest lensing. There is plenty more, as I have said. However, saying 'I don't believe in it', is a rather pathetic, unscientific response.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:03 PM   #105
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by baron View Post
There you go, I don't believe it exists. That's all I'm saying. You formulate an equation to describe how a wheeled widget negotiates a track. You successfully predict the movement of ten other widgets using the equation. Then you discover another 100 widgets and they're whizzing around all over the place in direct contravention to your maths. Essentially you've got a couple of choices; postulate an invisible widget magnet handing in the air or something, I don't know, or consider that your original equation needs a bit of work.

If you'd like a less technical explanation let me know.
Oh, we know from these and other observations that our original equations need work. We've actually known all along that our equations weren't complete.

With regard to the mysterious gravity effects, either the gravity part of the equation is missing something, or the matter part of the equation is missing something. Everything we've observed so far is consistent with the gravity equation being correct in this respect, and the matter equation needing more work. That could change, of course, as we learn more.

One of the problems with your hypothesis is that our current gravity equation is fantastically good at predicting and explaining just about everything else that we've observed so far. The DM observations we've made are consistent with gravity as we know it. If we tried to explain them by assuming that visible mass is the only mass in the universe, then nothing else about gravity would work the way we expect. It does, so "invisible" mass is the best placeholder theory for now.

But what's needed here from you is not a less technical explanation, but a more technical explanation. Do you have one?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:04 PM   #106
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
Sorry, but that is complete guff. It is easily shown that if visible matter were all there was, then galaxies should fly apart. We have observations from gravitational lensing that show a mismatch between the visible matter and the strongest lensing. There is plenty more, as I have said. However, saying 'I don't believe in it', is a rather pathetic, unscientific response.
Nevertheless, I don't believe in it.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:05 PM   #107
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,382
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Nevertheless, I don't believe in it.
Why not?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:19 PM   #108
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
It's not all just a model.
It really is. The universe doesn't actually do maths.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 06:03 PM   #109
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,123
Originally Posted by baron View Post
The gravitational influences have been observed, not the DM.



Why are people so desperate to fail to understand such a simple point? If you see me banging my head against the wall and pieces of brick flying off due to the sheer frustration, then that's a direct observation of me. If you're on the other side of the wall and witness only the flying pieces of brick then that's an indirect observation of me. And who knows, it might not be me at all.



Yes they are.



I don't believe DM exists. What the..?
And yet it goes right on existing just the same. Your beliefs have zero effect.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:53 AM   #110
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
And yet it goes right on existing just the same.
Yep, the invisible, undetectable substance that permeates the universe definitely exists, only an idiot would doubt it.

Oh sorry, wrong link.
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:47 AM   #111
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 11,388
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
It really is. The universe doesn't actually do maths.
The maths is just a description of the pattern of the behaviour of things. What it describes is no less real than any other description of the patterns we see in the world.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:24 AM   #112
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,231
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The maths is just a description of the pattern of the behaviour of things. What it describes is no less real than any other description of the patterns we see in the world.
Yeah, but it's just a model and as such has flaws.

All our models are flawed. Atoms don't look like that, the models we have for the very small don't match those we have for the very big. Some of the models have weird artifacts (like the many worlds theory), some produce weird result (there's a mathematical model for gyroscopes that makes it look like a magical massless drive) and some well studied areas have competing models (I believe that there are a number of different models for aerodynamics when you get down to the real minutia of it all).

The maths is always going to be an approximation of what's going on. It might, with some advanced models, be a really really good approximation, but it's never going to be precisely the thing modeled, partly because we won't be using enough decimal places but mostly because all our models are mathematical representations of the thing being modeled, not the thing itself.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:29 AM   #113
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The maths is just a description of the pattern of the behaviour of things.
Max Tegmark would disagree with you on that
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:49 AM   #114
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Bump
Originally Posted by JeanTate View Post
Diablo, baron: tell me what baryons are, or chickens, or beauty ...

No surprise, this connects fairly directly to what your view of science is, instrumentalist? Realist? Idealist? ...
Seems pertinent to many of the recent posts ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:02 AM   #115
baron
Philosopher
 
baron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,172
Edit wrong post
__________________
"I am a liar as well as a dwarf!"
baron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 09:09 AM   #116
JeanTate
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,985
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Yeah, but it's just a model and as such has flaws.

All our models are flawed. Atoms don't look like that, the models we have for the very small don't match those we have for the very big. Some of the models have weird artifacts (like the many worlds theory), some produce weird result (there's a mathematical model for gyroscopes that makes it look like a magical massless drive) and some well studied areas have competing models (I believe that there are a number of different models for aerodynamics when you get down to the real minutia of it all).

The maths is always going to be an approximation of what's going on. It might, with some advanced models, be a really really good approximation, but it's never going to be precisely the thing modeled, partly because we won't be using enough decimal places but mostly because all our models are mathematical representations of the thing being modeled, not the thing itself.
And sometimes the models are just insanely good ... 13+ decimal places in QED, for example, with serious thought being given to calculating, and adding, six-loop (!) corrections ...
JeanTate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.