Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off
- Thread starter 006
- Start date
Really? My mistake, I had read something different and thought it was just carbon... this could be interesting.
Jeff
Jeff
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
I've chatted with a couple physicists (not as many as you I'm sure) and I've read a lot of articles and posts by people claiming to be physicists so maybe I'm making a faulty stereotype. Nonetheless, they all seem to agree that the next big step is to find out what dark matter is. To me that seems suspiciously reminiscent of people centuries ago looking to find the end of the world.
Empathy
Bulging Member
That's definitely a good comparison; but consider that we did eventually reach that point where it was proved the world was in fact round. They'll keep digging and digging to find this 'dark matter' until they cannot dig any further, or something else comes up that completely disproves the idea of 'dark matter' entirely. It'll definitely take time, but that's how it's always worked in the past. We think we have the right idea, then something comes along that says "Actually, no, you're all idiots, it goes like this".
The difference is that we have a tremendous amount of evidence explained incredibly easily by this stuff. Of course everyone would love to see competing explanations for bazillions of bizarre things, but right now this is the best idea available - it's not like that happens easily or amounts to a popularity contest. More knowledge about dark matter is a big deal, but it's not like everything is invested in that one thing - in any case, it's a great explanation, so information either way is what we're after... not a continued circle jerk to get nerds on the Discovery channel.
I really wish I could explain the kind of thing that happens when all of these different phenomena start building up towards what could be a huge breakthrough... it's unfortunate that the technical barriers are so large, but that's how things will be until we *really* understand the icky little details. So many things can't really be dragged out of the research journals at this point, but when you're at the point where reading those is not uncomfortable.... there's really just no explanation, I'm afraid. For a lot of reasons, many seemingly nonintuitive things just look like The Right Answer™ after enough time in the deep end, and hopefully that'll all be clarified soon.
It's not like some jackass just jumped up with something that sounded scifi and everyone went with it for shits and giggles... once you've gotten past the technical barriers, there's a real hope and expectation for elegant, far-reaching solutions - and these can be decades ahead of the right machinery to really flesh out the details at times, because that's just how reality decides to bite us in the ass.
The really troubling thing is the accusation of hivemindedness - that's really not how anything has ever worked. If someone unqualified jumps up with some technobabble and can't back it up, of course he gets laughed out of the room - but, apart from that nonsense, science comes first... and it is impossible to describe just how much of a gap there is between what some laymen think of scientists' egos and what actually comes into play in the long run. There are definitely egotistical bastards all around, without a doubt... but if anyone catches flak after an unjustified shooting-down as you've described it'll more likely be the guy who goes for the throat than the guy who has a better explanation than dark matter. This isn't politics, this isn't religion... to the scientist, integrity and curiosity are bigger than any single person that could possibly exist, and if that ever happens in a seminar then no more science will be done there. A group of people who do science may be just people, but a proper group of scientists is so much more that there's just no way for an accusation like that to be within miles of the truth... 'normal' interactions just aren't the same, 'normal' expectations are off the mark, 'normal' ego issues turn out completely differently in the big picture, so to put scientists next to angry teenagers arguing over the best Metallica album is just indescribably bonkers. There are issues and there are conflicts, but it's not anything like what you've described.
EDIT: I'll give a completely off-topic digression just for the hell of it. You know what to expect when you think of a smooth curve or surface, and you have a good idea of what a point should look like on them. You might have a good idea of what it means for something to happen at 'most points' on a curve or surface, how to describe 'most subthings' of this surface, and so on. You're not led too far off by intuition in special cases, but in general even 'point' and 'space' may need to be generalized immensely. In the field of algebraic geometry, some very easy and natural questions that could be explained to a small child have taken us through very bizarre-looking constructions (bizarre enough for other mathematicians to call them 'abstract nonsense' or accuse algebraic geometers of trying to take over the world), and almost any student will easily see a huge step between thinking that a different idea of a point or a space is nonsense and thinking that it was really the right idea all along... the guy who (largely) brought these new things about still has something like a personality cult around him (at least as far as mathematicians can have such things), the whole thing sounds crazy to the untrained ear, and the entry barrier to the field is pretty significant, but these generalizations have, in the last few decades, changed several fields of mathematics and a number of areas in the sciences and led to a bigger explosion in progress than some disciplines have ever seen. There are always crackpots and stupid movie plots, but strange things are afoot at the Circle K when nerds get behind something like dark matter - things like that don't happen lightly.
Jeff
This particular article is pretty vague, but I think carbon14 was just used as an example of what this might affect.
We already know that some radioactive elements have "stable" decay rates and some change slightly with other factors like temperature I believe. We obviously don't like to use the ones who change for dating purposes. What the have found is some other factor I guess?
What I don't understand is how they would not have found these inconsistencies in decay rates already?! I'm very confused about why this is just popping up...
The article didn't even specify if this was one particular element, or a slew of them.
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
JBroll -- I see where you're coming from. But for the rest of us dummies, the whole dark matter thing looks a bit ridiculous. For example, the science us dummies know is proton/neutron/electron --> atom --> molecule --> cell --> organ --> organism, etc. Real simple, and it works. And we see it working.
But then you get outside our world and all the sudden you say, "well gravity isn't working the way it usually does so, instead of taking a step back and questioning how well our laws of science on earth work on other areas of the galaxy, let's blame it on something called Dark Matter, even though we can't detect it electromagnetically. Furthermore, let's divide dark matter into subgroups, even though we don't know what dark matter is:
* Cold dark matter – objects that move at classical velocities
* Warm dark matter – particles that move relativistically
* Hot dark matter – particles that move ultrarelativistically
Lastly, since this still doesn't give us the answers we're looking for, let's make up something called Dark Energy to account for all the other gravitation in the universe."
^I know that's a really poor, biased summary, but it's actually not that far from how all this has gone down. It's like scientists in the past century got all these tools to dig for answers but they've been digging in the wrong spot. All these crazy hypotheses are based on the assumption that all of our laws work the same here as they do there, on the other side of the universe.
It just seems so much more logical that the laws of physics, like EVERYTHING else in the universe, are not static.
But then you get outside our world and all the sudden you say, "well gravity isn't working the way it usually does so, instead of taking a step back and questioning how well our laws of science on earth work on other areas of the galaxy, let's blame it on something called Dark Matter, even though we can't detect it electromagnetically. Furthermore, let's divide dark matter into subgroups, even though we don't know what dark matter is:
* Cold dark matter – objects that move at classical velocities
* Warm dark matter – particles that move relativistically
* Hot dark matter – particles that move ultrarelativistically
Lastly, since this still doesn't give us the answers we're looking for, let's make up something called Dark Energy to account for all the other gravitation in the universe."
^I know that's a really poor, biased summary, but it's actually not that far from how all this has gone down. It's like scientists in the past century got all these tools to dig for answers but they've been digging in the wrong spot. All these crazy hypotheses are based on the assumption that all of our laws work the same here as they do there, on the other side of the universe.
It just seems so much more logical that the laws of physics, like EVERYTHING else in the universe, are not static.
Cyanide_Anima
yooveesevenbeekay
I dunno, this seems like preliminary stuff, and the article says:
"If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space."
It doesn't mention any other experiments, just the one that he did. One experiment doesn't prove anything. Correlation doesn't have to mean causation, and why would the particles be emitted a day and a half before the solar event? And Neutrinos don't really interact with matter. According to the latest astrophysics articles I've read a stream of neutrinos would have to go through light-years of dense (like lead) matter before even a single neutrino would interact with any atoms. Also, the neutrinos don't necessarily have to have the same interaction with all types of radioactive isotopes. There are dozens of different types of radiometric dating tests. The article even says that the scientists only assume based on a somewhat loose correlation. Communicating with the isotopes on earth? Wouldn't they have to invent another massless particle similar to a graviton for that? Those articles would read very different if they were written by scientists.
The article seems to blow things out of proportion. "Hey, there's something scientists don't fully understand yet, so let's focus on one particular statement made for the story" type thing. I wonder of the things they omitted from the interviews/reporting. The article writer seems to be more of a journalist getting a interesting scoop rather than getting into the science. Maybe it was a slow news day?
"If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space."
It doesn't mention any other experiments, just the one that he did. One experiment doesn't prove anything. Correlation doesn't have to mean causation, and why would the particles be emitted a day and a half before the solar event? And Neutrinos don't really interact with matter. According to the latest astrophysics articles I've read a stream of neutrinos would have to go through light-years of dense (like lead) matter before even a single neutrino would interact with any atoms. Also, the neutrinos don't necessarily have to have the same interaction with all types of radioactive isotopes. There are dozens of different types of radiometric dating tests. The article even says that the scientists only assume based on a somewhat loose correlation. Communicating with the isotopes on earth? Wouldn't they have to invent another massless particle similar to a graviton for that? Those articles would read very different if they were written by scientists.
The article seems to blow things out of proportion. "Hey, there's something scientists don't fully understand yet, so let's focus on one particular statement made for the story" type thing. I wonder of the things they omitted from the interviews/reporting. The article writer seems to be more of a journalist getting a interesting scoop rather than getting into the science. Maybe it was a slow news day?
What do you think physicists do to reach such conclusions?
"We're physicists, so... fuck it, MAGIC!"
This is the most plausible defect in our current collection of laws of science! That's the point!
More important than bias is the total loss of motivation - it's a shame that this happens so easily, but that's how it works. As before, this is the best way that we can account for things that seem wrong with our laws of physics.
I'm dealing with things that, in a special case, are related to local variations in spatial structure... and from that angle I can say that this is how we should be quantifying how bonkers the laws of physics seem 'over there' as far as I know. We're on the same general page, so not all is lost.
Jeff
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Physicists are open minded, but also conservative to an extent.
No one wants to completely rip everything they thought they knew to shreds, so they look for other options first. Maybe the whole dark matter thing will be explained in the context of current theory, maybe it will require a radical overhaul, who knows.
No one wants to completely rip everything they thought they knew to shreds, so they look for other options first. Maybe the whole dark matter thing will be explained in the context of current theory, maybe it will require a radical overhaul, who knows.
If the extent you have in mind is 'we still assume that the universe makes some sort of sense somehow', then they're conservative to an extent. Otherwise...
Jeff
Jeff
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Conservative to the extent of what I just said. I'm not saying it's a bad thing a such, or that it suggests closed mindedness.
Whenever anything strange comes to light, everyone attempts to explain it as part of the old model. Either they succeed, or someone has to come in with something more radical. It's just the way we work.
Remember that quantum theory used to be considered in direct contradiction with "we still assume that the universe makes some sort of sense somehow" back in the day.
Whenever anything strange comes to light, everyone attempts to explain it as part of the old model. Either they succeed, or someone has to come in with something more radical. It's just the way we work.
Remember that quantum theory used to be considered in direct contradiction with "we still assume that the universe makes some sort of sense somehow" back in the day.
drew_drummer
Dancefap
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
I love this quote:
"With gravity, I feel we're still on the cusp of understanding how/why it works at the fundamental level -- we aren't manipulating it to the extent of other forces (I'm sure there's many practical reasons, gravity is unbelievably weaker than the others, etc.). But it still seems strange that it's such a mystery."
^Scientists need to be spending more time discussing this and less time fabricating a story about so-called "Dark Matter."
http://aha.betterexplained.com/posts/42
"With gravity, I feel we're still on the cusp of understanding how/why it works at the fundamental level -- we aren't manipulating it to the extent of other forces (I'm sure there's many practical reasons, gravity is unbelievably weaker than the others, etc.). But it still seems strange that it's such a mystery."
^Scientists need to be spending more time discussing this and less time fabricating a story about so-called "Dark Matter."
http://aha.betterexplained.com/posts/42
John_C
formerly Skeksis268
Feel like I've been here before but here goes... dark matter is a placeholder name for some stuff we have indirect evidence for.
The rotation curve of galaxies (amongst other things) are different to what conventional theory predicts. Read this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_rotation_curve and don't be taken in by MOND, it's an interesting idea but has a LOT of problems, many big enough to be considered deal-breakers.
LeSedna
Mat or Mateo
When I see the "accuracy" of articles related to aeronautics in the media, I tend to stay cautious with so-called scientific media as Discovery (as much as I love their work and channel)
This again? Really? There are still loads of people who think they have a better idea than physicists about what physicists should do, but I'm not seeing much of anything useful. Bored of armchair coaching when your favorite sports team loses a game, or what?
Jef
Jef
Genius Gone Insane
http://www.¯\(°_o)/¯.com
That's not very convincing. What have physicists achieved in the last 50 years other than creating new problems? I mean honestly, so we proved black holes exist and there was probably a big bang. Other than that we haven't proven shit.
Look at this:
You see a spiral galaxy because you buy into all this wooden science we've had the past 50 years. Through my marble eyes I see a straight line. Oh, and you can quote me on that.
Call me an armchair scientist. I'm not claiming to know what the fuck is going on. But that's a step ahead of the science community who is making up the rules as they go along, a la fundamentalist Christians. Just look at the fucking picture and think about how distorted our observations probably are. It's not a spiral.
Also, Jbroll, I know you are very intelligent, and I'm not questioning that. Just trying to prod smart guys like you to think a little outside the box. I mean no disrespect.
Also, comparing me to an armchair quarterback is humorous, and worth some merit. But who can blame me if the coach is keeping Joe Montana on the bench so he can play Tim Tebow?