//
Quickread
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
Huffpost Science
  • Like
    Like
    524k524k
  • Newsletters
    Get ScienceNewsletters
  • Huffington Post Search
    Search The Huffington Post
THE BLOG
Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Lawrence M. Krauss Headshot
Lawrence M. Krauss Become a fan
Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University; Author, 'A Universe From Nothing'

The Big Unanswered Questions

Posted: Updated:
DARK MATTER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Science, in its effort to unravel the rules governing the workings of nature, is all about asking the right questions. These questions, whose answers may be forever elusive, nevertheless frame the direction of scientific research, sometimes for decades or longer. In the process, new unexpected discoveries are made that refine or even change what the questions are. The process has continued successfully for over 400 years, and shows no signs of abating.
At the same time, it is important to distinguish between those questions that are answerable in principle and those that are not, and also between those questions whose answers can be practically obtained in the near or medium term. Graduate students in physics, for example, often enter graduate school with grand goals of discovering the Theory of Everything. But, as my friend and Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek likes to say, what we really need is a Theory of Something!
With these issues as a guide, at the invitation of the editors of The Huffington Post, I list below a few of the burning questions that are driving the fields of cosmology and particle physics. The first two are being addressed by ongoing experiments that might shed significant light within the next decade. The last two are foundational questions whose resolution may be around the corner, but only if we are extremely lucky, or may take centuries if at all, depending on the kindness of nature as we probe it experimentally. Good ideas are much harder to come by than good experiments, so if a new good idea is required to resolve these foundational issues, all bets are off. It took a long time between Newton and Einstein to refine the theory of gravity after all.
What is the nature of Dark Matter?
Since the 1970's, when the evidence that the mass of our own galaxy, and indeed essentially all galaxies we can see, was dominated by some material other than stars and hot gas, the question of the nature of this 'dark matter' has played a central role in both cosmology and particle theory. As time progressed it became clear that dark matter dominates not only galaxies, but clusters of galaxies, and is over 10 times more abundant than all visible matter in the Universe.
With this abundance, arguments stemming from our understanding of the origin of light elements in the Big Bang imply that this material cannot be made of normal matter, i.e. matter comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons, the building blocks of all atoms. If instead, it is made from a new type of elementary particle that doesn't interact with electromagnetically, dark matter would exist as a diffuse gas or particles permeating throughout galaxies, including our own. As a result, it is not just "out there," it is "in here," going through you and me, the whole earth, and the computer I type this on.
This possibility provides both a challenge and an opportunity. Without knowing the identity of dark matter, attempts to detect it directly on earth require making some educated guesses about what it might be. However, there is at least the possibility of detecting it directly! Such detection could reveal not only the nature of what makes up the dominant matter in the universe, but also could tell us something fundamental about elementary particles and forces.
It is therefore particularly appropriate that there are two different approaches to detecting dark matter: (1) deep underground detectors hoping to detect minuscule signals from the rare dark matter particles that might actually scatter off an atomic nucleus and deposit energy, and (2) The Large Hadron Collider, which has turned on again, and may recreate briefly the conditions in the very early universe in which these new elementary particles were created, producing enough of them to be detected in collisions.

There is thus a race on right now, between direct detection of primordial dark matter underground, and the LHC, to see who might discover it first. Either set could easily announce a discovery this decade... Or, we may be wrong about its nature and need to go back to the drawing board.
Why is the Weak force Weak?
The Large Hadron Collider of course already has done more than search for dark matter. It did, after all, discover the Higgs particle, the last jewel in the crown that is the Standard Model of particle physics. Nevertheless, each new discovery in physics generates more questions. The Higgs endows the particles that convey the weak force with their masses. These in turn determine the nature of that force. But why does the Higgs exist at the scale it does? Why is the weak force so much weaker than, say, the strong force, and why are these forces, including electromagnetism, so much stronger than the force of gravity?
It is these questions that we hope the LHC will shed light on as it probes further, following its recent upgrade in energy and beam intensity. And interestingly, dark matter may play a role here as well. Perhaps the most interesting possible explanation of why the weak scale is what it is posits the existence of a new symmetry in nature, called Supersymmetry, that predicts a whole new set of elementary particles that have not yet been seen. The lightest of these could be absolutely stable, and is a prime candidate for dark matter. So, if the LHC discovers this particle it could not only unravel the mystery of dark matter, but also perhaps shed light on Supersymmetry, and beyond that, on the unification of all forces. Thus, we are waiting with great anticipation to what the LHC will report after its next year or two of operation.
Is Our Universe Unique?
Perhaps one of the most fundamental questions in physics, and indeed the question that Einstein himself mused about when he questioned whether 'God' had any choice in the creation of the universe (where of course he was speaking metaphorically and not literally), is whether our universe is unique, and whether the laws of physics are themselves unique and fixed. Would a small change in even one of the fundamental constants cause the whole edifice to crumble?
This question, while fundamental, may also seem completely inaccessible. After all, we only have access to our universe, so speculating about other universes may seem like pure metaphysics. This of course has not caused such speculation to disappear, and in fact, most extensions of the Standard Model of Particle physics suggest that our universe is not likely to be unique at all, and the perhaps the nature of elementary particles and fields that we observe may be due to pure chance.
What makes this question potentially more interesting is that we might get some indirect experimental hints of the existence of other universes, even if we may never directly observe them. Recently the BICEP2 experiment at the South Pole claimed to detect gravitational waves from the very early universe. Unfortunately it appears that the signal was probably due to foreground noise from our own galaxy. Nevertheless, if future experiments definitively detect such a background it would provide evidence of a process in the very early universe called Inflation, which, besides explaining many features of our observed universe at large scales, generically creates many other universes in the process as well. If we could measure these waves precisely, we could probe the possible nature of Inflation precisely, and in so doing explore the physics that led to the generation of our observable universe, and possibly others. In that way, while we might never have direct access to other such possible universes, we might have strong indirect evidence of their existence.
What is the nature of Nothing?
I couldn't resist saving this for last, as it is, after all, the subject of my most recent book. But I don't want to get hung up here with the contentious definitions of nothing. Here I simply refer to empty space, and to the remarkable discovery 15 years or so ago that empty space contains most of the energy in the universe, for reasons we don't understand at all. This energy is causing the observed expansion of the universe to accelerate, and will ultimately determine the future of our universe. There are a host of astrophysical observations now underway to try and shed light on the mystery of this 'dark energy' as it has become known, but at present we are no closer to understanding its origin than we were when it was first discovered. Is it truly the 'quantum energy of the vacuum', or is it associated with some new invisible field permeating all of space, or perhaps to something even more exotic?
I expect that without a full theory of quantum gravity we won't be able to fully resolve this problem, and that may take centuries. But I have been wrong before, and perhaps one of the upcoming probes of the expansion of the universe will reveal a new wrinkle that will point us in the right direction. That is why we simply have to keep trying. You never know in advance.
This post is part of a series commemorating The Huffington Post's 10 Year Anniversary through expert opinions looking forward to the next decade in their respective fields. To see all of the posts in the series, read here.
 
Click here to view Conversations

Conversations

Add a comment

 

.
 
.
.
Your comment may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
.
  • Conrad Christian · Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California
    Thank you Dr Krauss for the tireless work you do as a educator and being on the frontline of science communication or as you put it "teaching is selling" science.
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • James Redford
      Hi, Prof. Lawrence M. Krauss. In answer to your questions:

      1.) The dark matter is a manifestation of an interchange of energy between the Higgs field and the initial SU(2)_L gauge field required by the Standard Model of particle physics.

      2.) Regarding the free parameters of the Standard Model of particle physics, including the weak force: within the Omega Point cosmology required by the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics), these parameters take on all mathematically-possible values consistent with the universe starting at the Big Bang initial singularity and ending at the Omega Point final singularity, with the values gradually scaling in time during the evolution of the universe.

      3.) One can derive the known laws of physics a priori. The only reason they w...ere not derived a priori historically is because no one had been smart enough to do so. So empiricism was used as a necessary crutch for human minds in discovering the known laws of physics. But now that we do have these known physical laws, we can see mathematically how there was no contingency in regards to them, i.e., in order to have a three-dimensional space in which beings complex enough to be self-aware can exist, the physical laws have to mathematically be the ones we actually observe. And so these known laws of physics are not going to start being disconfirmed, unless we already exist in a computer simulation and the beings running that simulation decide to alter the simulated environment (however, those beings themselves would have to exist in a universe where the aforesaid known laws of physics are in operation).

      For the details on how the known laws of physics are actually mathematically unavoidable if one is to have a three-dimensional world with self-aware beings in it, see my below resource, particularly the section wherein I give commentary concerning your 2007 debate with physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler, and the section regarding the Turing Church Online Workshop:

      * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss's Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo .

      However, Quantum Mechanics is inherently multiversal, and so every universe of the Many-Worlds Interpretation consistent with starting at the Big Bang initial singularity and ending at the Omega Point final singularity exists. For more on this, see, e.g., Frank J. Tipler, "Quantum nonlocality does not exist", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 31 (Aug. 5, 2014), pp. 11281-11286, doi:10.1073/pnas.1324238111.

      Regarding Inflation, the known physical laws require the wave function of the universe to have initially been a Dirac delta function, which explains the observed flatness of the universe without resorting to nonempirical new physics such as Inflation Theory (requiring the unobserved inflation field, i.e., inflaton particles), but rather is simply quantum kinematics: a result of wave-packet spreading.

      4.) As required by the Standard Model of particle physics, the net baryon number was created in the early universe by baryogenesis via electroweak quantum tunneling. This necessarily forces the Higgs field to be in a vacuum state that is not its absolute vacuum, which is the cause of the observed positive cosmological constant, i.e., the dark energy. Also, spacetime is not "nothing".

      Pertaining to quantum gravity, the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg theory of quantum gravity is the unique quantization of General Relativity, i.e., it's the only way mathematically to quantize General Relativity, since gravity in General Relativity is a spin-2 field, and quantizing a spin-2 field requires it to be a spacetime metric and imposes the full GL(4, R) symmetry group of General Relativity.

      For more on this, see the aforecited resource concerning your Caltech debate, and see also my following article on Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics. The Omega Point cosmology demonstrates that the above-said known laws of physics require that the universe end in the Omega Point: the final cosmological singularity and state of infinite informational capacity having all the unique properties traditionally claimed for God, and of which is a different aspect of the Big Bang initial singularity, i.e., the first cause. The Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals.

      * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708 . See More
      • John Gorn · Top Commenter
        Not sure why almost every physics article has a comment like this, incredibly long-winded and full of brain-cramping terminology stated in absolutist terms of being certain truth. I'm sure Dr. Krauss has better things to do than to debunk every crackpot proposal dumped in his lap.

        As my time is of less value than Dr. Krauss, I can afford five minutes to the job. This is what Mr. Redford has to say once you unwind all of the technobabble prose:

        "The Omega Point is omniscient, having an infinite amount of information and knowing all that is logically possible to be known; it is omnipotent, having an infinite amount of energy and power; and it is omnipresent, consisting of all that exists. These three properties are the traditional definitions of God held by almost all of the world’s leading religions. Hence, by definition, the ...Omega Point is God."

        Well, since within the confines of the universe, no information is lost and the sum total of all energy and matter is always the same, if the Omega Point (proposed final singularity) contains everything and is therefore omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, then the same can be said of the totality of the universe at this moment. Ergo, the universe is god. No need to appeal to an Omega point.

        But note that Mr. Redford capitalizes the G in god, because pantheism is not what he is about. He goes on to state that this proposed god is "personal" and in fact is the same god of "all the Abrahamic religions". This rather broad logical leap is not given an explanation.

        Further, the fact that the totality of the universe, by definition, contains the sum of all information, does not make it omnicient. Containing information is not the same as being sentient. Further, containing all energy does not make the universe omnipotent - all powerful, able to do anything. It is only able to do everything that can be done, and that's quite a different thing. And what about being omnipresent - everywhere at the same time? Well at a point of singularity you could say "everywhere" exists at that same point, but at infinite density this rather constrains what an entity could do about it. In fact that entity would be itself by infinitely dense and infinitely at the mercy of whatever physics applies in such a situation. Further, said entity would exist only in that universe and not in any other, thus losing out on all of the previously proposed "omnis".

        There is much more than this, but the fact is the initial assertions are nonsense, so the hundreds of pages of babble heaped on top of it fail to hold any merit or meaning.

        Sorry Mr. Redford. See More
        Reply · Like
        · 14 · Yesterday at 4:05pm
        .
      • James Redford
        Hi, John Gorn. You wrote,

        ""
        Not sure why almost every physics article has a comment like this, incredibly long-winded and full of brain-cramping terminology stated in absolutist terms of being certain truth. I'm sure Dr. Krauss has better things to do than to debunk every crackpot proposal dumped in his lap.
        ""

        Bear in mind that physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been published and extensively peer-reviewed in leading physics journals. Further, the Omega Point cosmology is a mathematical theorem per the known laws of physics (viz., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics). These aforesaid known laws of physics have been confirmed by every experiment to date. Thus, the only way to avoid the Omega Point cosmology is to reject empirical science. As Pr...of. Stephen Hawking wrote, "one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem." (From p. 67 of Stephen Hawking, The Illustrated A Brief History of Time [New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1996; 1st ed., 1988].)

        You go on to write:

        ""
        Further, the fact that the totality of the universe, by definition, contains the sum of all information, does not make it omnicient. Containing information is not the same as being sentient. Further, containing all energy does not make the universe omnipotent - all powerful, able to do anything. It is only able to do everything that can be done, and that's quite a different thing. And what about being omnipresent - everywhere at the same time? Well at a point of singularity you could say "everywhere" exists at that same point, but at infinite density this rather constrains what an entity could do about it. In fact that entity would be itself by infinitely dense and infinitely at the mercy of whatever physics applies in such a situation. Further, said entity would exist only in that universe and not in any other, thus losing out on all of the previously proposed "omnis".
        ""

        The universe is finite in information at any given time within spacetime. However, the aforesaid known physical laws mathematically require that sapient intelligence grow without bound going into the Omega Point final singularity, with sapience becoming literally infinite in intelligence at the Omega Point. For the details on this, see Sec. 3: "Physics of the Omega Point Cosmology", Subsec. 3.1: "The Omega Point", pp. 12-19 of my following article:

        * James Redford, "The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything", Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Sept. 10, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), 186 pp., doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

        Additionally, in the below resource are different sections which contain some helpful notes and commentary by me pertaining to multimedia wherein Prof. Tipler explains the Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model TOE.

        * James Redford, "Video of Profs. Frank Tipler and Lawrence Krauss’s Debate at Caltech: Can Physics Prove God and Christianity?", alt.sci.astro, Message-ID: jghev8tcbv02b6vn3uiq8jmelp7jijluqk[at sign]4ax[period]com , July 30, 2013, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.sci.astro/KQWt4KcpMVo See More
        Reply · Like
        · 1 · Yesterday at 5:10pm
        .
      • David de Medicis · Top Commenter · Works at Nonya Damn Business Inc.
        James Redford Thanks for the info. Now cure cancer.
        Reply · Like
        · 1 · 21 hours ago
        .
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • Tom Carberry · Top Commenter
      The larger questions lie in our inability to figure out the errors in our theories, as they don't reconcile with each other. Somewhere in all the mathematics of physics, we have something wrong.

      But no one knows what, so they keep having to fill in the blanks. So physicists have had to posit more and more esoteric ideas to cover the gaps.

      The LHC did not "find" the Higgs "particle" or "field," but rather found 3 particles that may fit the bill. Or may not.

      Not only don't we understand why gravity lacks the power of forces like electromagnetism, we don't really understand gravity at all.

      Even in areas where science seems to have the answers, major questions arise, like the nature of light and the spectrum.

      I think the error lies in "objectivity," or the mistaken idea of Enlightenment science (which dominates scientific thought today) in the ability of humans to "objectively" observe the universe and report on it.

      Physics has shown the error in this, as we know the observer influences the experiment. But physicists still have not introduced the subjective into their calculations. And what would the "subjective" mean? I think it means consciousness, which I think exists as something separate from space, time, energy, and matter.
      • William Pennat · Top Commenter · Fitchburg, Massachusetts
        I agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with the scientific approach to phenomena and, more generally, reality. One of my favorite examples is the proliferation of particles in quantum theory in complete violation (it seems to me) of Occam's Razor. (Not an absolute principle, I realize, but certainly a useful guideline.)

        The proliferation of particles (including the now iconic "Dark Matter") even has its analogs in other fields. In paleoanthropology, it's the proliferation of hominid/hominin species. In clinical psychology, it's the proliferation of mental disorders.

        Theory of Everything? I'm not holding my breath....
        Reply · Like
        · 1 · 8 hours ago
        .
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • Jason Palmer · Top Commenter
      Love your work, DR. Krauss! Keep asking and keep searching. We may never find all of the answers but at least we know that we're asking decent questions which at least some kind of potential answer. Any scientific question beats the pants off of a knock at the door and a rhetorical one about whether I've found Jesus.
      • Hubert Lee Fitts · Top Commenter
        It was in part the Christian pursuit of understanding the mind of the Creator that laid the foundation for modern experimental science. There is a mental roadblock to the assumption that requires matter to have created matter and that spirit does not exist. Who is Jesus is a terrific question if you desire to understand first cause as cosmologists still have many questions as the article states.
        Reply · Like
        · 12 hours ago
        .
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • John Williams · Top Commenter · Hard Knocks University
      How can we even begin to advance science in America when recent polls reveal that 43% of the American people do not believe in evolution? Dr. Krauss and of course one of his colleagues on that subject, Richard Dawkins, have appeared and lectured at numerous public venues to discuss science and evolution.

      Yet, as we have witnessed by our elected government representatives Creation Science teaching in public school classrooms keeps gaining validity among the proselytizers and CS advocates who insist that everything was created out of nothing at exactly the same time 6,000 years ago, men and dinosaurs coexisted and evolution never occurred.

      Look how successful the anti-global warming acolytes have been in presenting their version of "facts" by bringing a snowball into the House of Representatives to "prove" that global warming is a liberal hoax. At least two states, Wisconsin and Florida, have issued a gag rule against state employees who have the temerity to cite human activity as a cause for the increase in global warming and climate change.

      The more people there are like Oklahoma's Senator James Inhofe who are virulently anti-science the farther behind our country will become in the complex and challenging fields of science. As a nation, we are going backwards.
      • Dan Cobb · Top Commenter
        I couldn't agree more.
        Reply · Like
        · 12 hours ago
        .
      • Bill Thacker · Top Commenter · The Ohio State University
        "How can we even begin to advance science in America when recent polls reveal that 43% of the American people do not believe in evolution?"

        I'm in a good mood today so I'll try to cheer you up (even though I share your frustration).

        We can still advance science because science isn't democratic. 43%? Big deal; probably 90% of people on Earth don't understand science to any real degree. But science progresses anyway, because it only takes one smart person to advance it. Science advanced despite the Inquisition; it will survive the Republican Party, too.

        Anyway, science has a way of bribing its detractors. "If you accept that I'm right, you can have these nifty electric light bulbs and stop buying candles". People can't reject its allure forever.

        So have hope. The anti-science movement is an outgrowth of the Christian fundamentalist political movement, and that seems doomed to collapse; both because younger generations are turning out to be less religious, and because core fundamentalist issues like being anti-gay are alienating an ever-growing portion of voters. The Republicans must either drop their fundamentalist, anti-science agenda, or lose political power.
        Reply · Like
        · 3 · 7 hours ago
        .
       
      .
      .
      Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
      .
      .
    • Joe Tomberlin · Top Commenter · Fort Worth, Texas
      42!
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • Bob Monteleone · Top Commenter · San Diego, California
        You start off in paragraph four as though you know dark matter exists and is necessary to explain the mass of the galaxies we see. How do you now what the masses of the galaxies are? The speed of light and distance measurements are paramount to calculating the mass. Are these constant especially over the millions of years it take light to get here? Or is your dark matter and dark energy for that matter simply the 21st century equivalent of aether, the 19th century substance thought necessary for light to travel on.

        Since this article is about unanswered questions how about starting without assuming anything or that any of these cosmological questions have been accurately answered. Aether was found to not be necessary for light transmission yet is was assumed real by science in the middle 19th century. Is it possible that dark matter and dark energy fall into the same trap? If we're having trouble finding out what it is or directly measuring it, maybe we're barking up the wrong tree.
        • Bill Thacker · Top Commenter · The Ohio State University
          "Since this article is about unanswered questions how about starting without assuming anything"

          Because then you can't get anywhere. To make progress, you have to pick a direction and see where it leads. You make assumptions, find out if they lead you somewhere useful, and then you check those assumptions as you learn more. I think Krauss explained this quite well in his first paragraph, and he concluded the section on dark matter with the admission, "we may be wrong about its nature and need to go back to the drawing board."

          Aether, as you say, turned out to be a false assumption. But in its day it was a *useful* idea, because it answered the question, "How can magnetism and gravitation act across empty space, when we know that transmitting forces requires some medium?" Newton's theory could only be accepted by assuming t...here was such a medium, and he called that aether. By assuming aether, Newton was able to give us a working model of universal gravitation that was sufficient for all purposes for nearly 200 years.

          What we eventually discovered (just as Krauss said in the first paragraph) is that the question itself was wrong. No medium is required for gravitation or magnetism. Newton's gravitation works just fine without aether. But it turns out Newton was wrong because of another assumption: that gravitation obeys the same laws regardless of its absolute magnitude. We later discovered that Newton's gravitation doesn't work right when gravity is very strong. (This was demonstrated by observations like the precession of Mercury; the amount of precession Newton's law predicted turned out to be very slightly wrong. ) So Einstein formulated General Relativity and fixed that error.

          But Einstein could never have come up with General Relativity without Newton's (incorrect) law of gravitation, and Newton couldn't have proposed gravitation without aether. So that false assumption allowed us to progress toward the truth, which would not have happened had Newton said, "I can't assume anything about aether, so I'll go work on something else."

          So yes, we could be completely wrong about dark matter and dark energy. But those assumptions are useful and allow us to move forward instead of squatting where we are in ignorance. See More
          Reply · Like
          · 9 hours ago
          .
        • William Pennat · Top Commenter · Fitchburg, Massachusetts
          Bill Thacker

          I basically agree with Bob's objections to DM, as I harbor similar views. But at least the luminiferous ether could be detected (that whole argument again) in principle. And, in fact, that was just what the Michelson-Morley experiment set out to do and failed. If the ether existed, the speed of light should have been different when measured in the direction of the Earth's motion and at right angles to it and it wasn't. The problem with DM to my mind is that no such critical test exists for it, nor does anyone seem to be able to create one. The more I read about DM, the more it sounds undetectable in principle. Even if the reboot of the LHC manages to confirm supersymmetry, that would only demonstrate that such particles CAN exist, not that they do in nature....
          Reply · Like
          · about an hour ago
          .
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • Valeriy Polulyakh · Top Commenter · Moscow State University
        It was said, that if the theory describes all known facts then this theory is probably wrong because there are always some wrong facts. The Standard Model of particle physics does not incorporate the physics of GR and it is not consistent with the Standard Model of cosmology with its dark energy and dark matter. The questions are arising. Do we really have a wrong Standard Model of the particles which can not explain 96% of our world? Or is the Standard Model of cosmology not correct since it requires all this non-existing dark matter and dark energy?
        • Joseph Warner · Top Commenter · Soon to be RETIRED at My Own Business
          Well Valeriy, all theories are neither wrong nor correct until observations confirms or dispute their conclusions. Dr. Krauss did say that the standard model cannot explain dark matter nor dark energy.

          Dark matter and dark energy is just the terms used to describe the observations of the universe. The concept of dark matter is necessary for the galaxies to exist while the dark energy is needed to explain the expansion of the universe. It would not surprise anyone if dark matter is not a whole set of new particles that doesn't fit in with the standard model.
          Reply · Like
          · 1 · 22 hours ago
          .
        • Valeriy Polulyakh · Top Commenter · Moscow State University
          Yes Joseph, observations show that the Standard Model of particle physics and the Standard Model of cosmology are incompatible. The rest (dark matter, dark energy, ... ) are the fantasy that do not have presentation in the real world (not observable). You can use, instead, Angels & Demons :))
          Reply · Like
          · 1 · 14 hours ago
          .
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • William Pennat · Top Commenter · Fitchburg, Massachusetts
        "What is the nature of Dark Matter?" Um, I don't know. Non-existence? My own prediction for this is that some other, MUCH more satisfactory explanation will turn up for the cosmic gravitational anomalies DM has been cooked up to explain. If it can't be directly detected, folks, to me that implies IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!
        • Bill Thacker · Top Commenter · The Ohio State University
          "If it can't be directly detected, folks, to me that implies IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!"

          You're mistaken, or else you're using "directly" in an unfamiliar way.

          You can't directly detect X-rays. You have to detect them indirectly, by letting them interact with photographic film or CCDs which convert their energy into something you can observe directly.

          Likewise, you can't directly detect gravitation or magnetism. You can only infer their existence by indirect observations of their effects on objects.

          Imagine you're standing on a road at night as a car approaches. Suddenly the light from its headlights is blocked by a deer-shaped silhouette which crosses the road between you and the car. Can you infer the deer exists even though you didn't detect it directly?

          You can't directly detect heat at a distance. If you see a plastic cup through a telescope from a mile away, there's no way to know its temperature, right? But suppose the cup begins to melt. Now you know something about its temperature even though you can't directly observe it.

          It's methods like these that allow science to learn quite a lot about things it can't directly observe.
          Reply · Like
          · 8 hours ago
          .
        • William Pennat · Top Commenter · Fitchburg, Massachusetts
          Bill Thacker

          Your definition of indirect detection is my definition of direct detection. Obviously you have to have some medium for use in detecting, observing, and measuring phenomena. Every example you cite IS an example of "direct detection" in any real sense. And DM has NOT been detected by any methods like the ones you describe or by analogous methods. It has simply been inferred from cosmic gravitational anomalies that can, in fact, have other explanations. In fact, various (direct) detection systems have been tried for measuring DM in our vicinity (which, according to predictions, there should be a fair amount of) and they've come up with nothing, nada...
          Reply · Like
          · 1 · 8 hours ago
          .
        • Bill Thacker · Top Commenter · The Ohio State University
          William Pennat :"Your definition of indirect detection is my definition of direct detection. "

          OK. So then when you say "direct detection", you really just mean "detection", right?

          The fact we can't detect something today doesn't mean we'll never detect it. Just a decade ago we couldn't detect planets orbiting other stars; now we can. The planets existed, apparently, whether we could detect them or not.

          Certainly there are alternate explanations that would render dark matter unnecessary. But we can't detect any of those, either, so I don't see why you're so hostile to the dark matter hypothesis or how you can predict those alternate theories will prevail. Further, if modifying Newton's law of gravitation or discovering quantum field topology defects makes dark matter unnecessary, that would be one of those "back to the drawing board" moments Krauss admitted are possible.

          Your posting just seemed very strident, as if you were angry about the fact Krauss assumes DM is a real thing. I don't understand your hostility toward what seemed to me a very innocuous essay.
          Reply · Like
          · 7 hours ago
          .
         
        .
        .
        Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
        .
        .
      • Dieter Heymann · Top Commenter
        For me the question is not "Is our universe unique" but "Were the content and physics of our universe predetermined by some non-natural, eternal power"? My question arises from the observation that our universe contains only matter but no antimatter from our big bang (1). Was that predetermined or accidental that is to say was there an equal probability that our universe could have only contained what we call antimatter? If the first is the case then the content and physics of our universe are not in the realm of science but in the realm of the supernatural and much of cosmology is voodoo science. For that reason I tend to the answer that the content and physics of our universe were not predetermined which, in turn, implies that there must be numerous universes with some containing what we call antimatter as is dictated by the p...rinciples of probability (2). It does not matter that we can never detect these. It does not matter whether these have the same fundamental constants as ours.
        A corollary is that the age of our universe was not predetermined either. Some of the forever undetectable universes are older and others are younger than ours. If this sounds like my voodoo so be it. If you cannot hold that " the content and physics of our universe were predetermined by some non-natural, eternal power" and that it must be the only universe extant you are obliged to come up with your own hypothesis of its consequences. The aim is to stop speculating whether our universe is unique or not. My view: it is not.
        (1) please note that my reasoning is based on a real observation and not on Einstein's now completely useless musing about fundamental constants. In defense of Einstein: he did not know that our universe contains only matter from our Big Bang.
        (2) analogous to the principles of probability that 10% of the radioactive decays of K40 go to Ca40 and the remaining 90% to Ca40. Was that predetermined by a non-natural, eternal power? If so then radioactivity is a voodoo science and the date and scientists of every scientific discovery were also predetermined. In other words Hahn and Meitner for example were agents of some God. See More
           
          .
          .
          Your reply may also appear on The Huffington Post's Facebook page.
          .
          .
        Advertisement
        AdChoices

        Suggested For You

        These stories are recommended for you by Gravity.
        The recommendations may include stories from our other publisher partners, some of whom pay to include their content here.

        FOLLOW HUFFPOST

        Use this form to alert a HuffPost editor about a factual or typographical error in this story.

        Notify message
        * Required
        * * .
        .
        * What kind of error is this?
        .
        * What is the correction? 0 count
        .
        * Type the words below so we know you are not a cyborg


        .
        Thanks for your report!
        0%
        10%
        20%
        30%
        40%
        50%
        60%
        70%
        80%
        90%
        100%