vrkas t1_iwhwk0i wrote
Reply to comment by Giggalo_Joe in Most cosmologists say dark matter must exist. So far, it’s nowhere to be found. Examining the philosophy of science behind two rival theories can explain why. by ADefiniteDescription
> It is called the Theory of Relativity for a reason. It's unproven and unprovable.
General relativity has made predictions which have held up under a century of scrutiny. It breaks down as you get to very small distances but people are working on it.
>Until you have one theory that can unify all physics, on all levels, from subatomic, to celestial, you will have a flawed theory that is at least a little bit incorrect, no matter what name you give or how much it helps us understand the universe around us.
You've set a high bar, probably impossible. I think every physicist knows that we can't explain all phenomena at all energy scales and distances in a unified way, and I hope that no one is claiming that Lambda CDM is the theory of cosmology. But there is a lot of value in effective theories which are useful in some range. Like Newtonian gravity is sufficient to do space exploration, the Standard Model of particle physics is sufficient for running large scale experiments.
Giggalo_Joe t1_iwi9mob wrote
That's the point. Even a thousand years from now or ten thousand, we likely won't have all the answers. And an answer is not right if it is even 1% wrong. That's why it's important to never try to prove the theory, but create a proper theory to fit the facts. We should never be saying 'time does this near the speed of light', we should be saying 'we believe time does this near the speed of light based upon the current available theory and information'. Going back to the original post topic, dark matter may not exist...eventually you have to start looking at the theory as the problem.
vrkas t1_iwiasis wrote
OK great. I'm not sure what your actual point was then? Do we just abandon physics because we can't develop GUTs which explain everything?
Giggalo_Joe t1_iwihe3e wrote
No. We stop trying to make the data fit the theory and instead start asking why the data doesn't fit the theory. And what always has to be an option is, change the theory.
Nickesponja t1_iwj087t wrote
> We stop trying to make the data fit the theory
> change the theory
These two are the same thing. When scientists try to "make the data fit the theory", they are changing the theory, not the data. Obviously. Because the data is what it is.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments