Now, dark matter can explain galaxy rotation curves, can give an explanation of the observation from the cosmic wave background, can provide an explanation for excesses in gamma ray and cosmic ray data, etc... You can check all of this in the corresponding scientific publications.
Why or how does dark matter explain any of those things? What is dark matter?
In particle physics, dark matter is usually introduced as a particle that we have not observed with properties similar to those of the known particles.
It's made up, sure, as everything else. How is it different from standard matter? Why is it called dark matter? Because we've theorized particles we haven't observed? I feel it's all made up to explain measurements or perhaps even observations that are just interpreted in a wrong manner. It works gravitationally but not electromagnetically? Maybe you're missing something in your calculations. Look, I don't mind fiddling with calculations and trying to define meaning to unexplained variables. Intimidating people from the truth, however, is another matter entirely.
We have data and we have the standard model predictions. We observe a difference a we try to explain it. Dark matter is introduced with properties such that it fills the gap. The nice feature is that one single stuff can fill may many gaps at the same time (all the observations I mentioned, plus others). Those are the attractive features of dark matter.
It is not that different from the standard matter. It is called 'dark' matter because it does not interact electromagnetically. But this is not really special. Neutrinos exist and neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically. Why is a proton called a proton? Why is a quark called a quark? Someone introduced the name at some point and it stayed. That's it.
To repeat: theoretical physicists are trying to explain measurements. That is what theoretical physics is about: explaining the observations and making predictions that can be tested in future experiments (a theory must be falsifiable). This is the scientific method after all. Nothing less, nothing more.
There are different ways to do build theories explaining data, and dark matter is one of them. There are others. As I said it already (but I would like to insist on this point). The dark matter hypothesis is one among many. Whether you like it or not is a matter of taste. The point is that all theoretical options must be considered if we want to understand things better one day. As long as a theory has not been ruled out by data, it is alive. Period. Dark matter is alive. Modified gravity is alive. etc.
Concerning the Standard calculations. These are well known. The risk we are missing something is small, although non zero (zero risk does not exist). There are hypotheses behind each calculation, and these hypotheses sound reasonable. Now, the important point is that we have many observation that cannot be explained with standard calculations. Really many. Missing something in each of them (in the context of standard stuff) is unlikely. Possible but unlikely. If you have an idea on what could be missing, please speak up and show how it works. I have no idea.
Are you suggesting I am trying to intimidate you? That is a little bit insulting. I am trying to detail what are the issues, how dark matter helps, etc... And I have never (but never! please read again) said dark matter was the 'truth'. I have no idea what is the truth. We don't know and this is why people like me have a job. We try to understand how the universe works.
Maybe you have the 'truth' but that is another story... You may like better an alternative option to dark matter. Fair enough. But we are not talking about truth here...
I can hardly believe you're keeping this up. Pretending you're all this and all that but it's too hard to come up with one concrete reason why dark matter is theorized at all? One observation or measurement and an explanation for why it makes a case for dark matter? Anyway fine, take this one. I just think it's weird that for a decade (or longer?) now people have been coming up with this dark matter in populist media and other propaganda channels, clearly separating people from thinking for themselves because this is intimidating matter. Now you're here shilling it up.
That is slightly crazy... I already gave many reasons. Some are all listed in our discussion. Just to repeat: galaxy rotation curves, CMB, cosmic rays, gamma rays, formation of the structures in our universe, etc... This is why I think the dark matter paradigm is a good idea. It works damned well in explaining all these observations.
Scientists are well aware that dark matter is not the only option. And people are thinking hard about both non standard and novel dark matter ideas, and non standard and novel ideas without dark matter too. What you state about intimidation, close-mindedness and so on is just meaningless.
Remember that not everything scientists work on ends up in the media. Medias are selecting what they want to talk about. Dark matter is popular in media, that is true. Other options (that you seem to prefer) are less popular, that is true too. I am not the one choosing what the media like to talk about...
And not everything popular is good science and not all good science is popular. I believe dark matter theories are excellent theories. Who can say whether a theory is good or bad? Certainly neither you nor me, but only data. That is the scientific method...
On the other hand, I decided to work on dark matter and I deicided to talk about what I work on. That is my choice. If I would decide one day to work on modified gravity theories, I will write on this...
You're just copying whatever's mainstream? Sure you're not getting payed?
Oh well now you've explained the paradigm I suppose, good job man you've really enlightened the people.
Okay maybe should we stop this conversation? This leads to nowhere.
I was trying to give you (and just you by the way since you asked the question) keywords explaining why dark matter is not a crazy idea, and you seem to be unhappy regardless what I say. What can I do? I don't know what you want. A full course on dark matter? Good. There are plenty available for free on the web (I am sure you can find them as well as I could. So help yourself) with all detailed calculations that you may want to see and that I don't want to type here for various reasons.
What are you talking about? I discussed, in this post, three scientific papers I have recently read and that I have found interesting. Scientific journals are not usual media to what I know... And I didn't copy anything. IF you accuse my of plagiarism, just proof it.
Can't place blind faith in science, gotta think for yourself. Our society is not immune to deceit, and science and scientists aren't either. What/who decides what science is shared with the public? How is science funded?
Hey I'm just sharing my opinion and mostly sharing a perspective that I think is incredibly important. I trust you're only doing the same. Sorry if this wasn't the most pleasant interaction you've had on the internet. Steem on.
Actually, in our field, almost everything is public and freely available on the arxiv even before articles are submitted to journal. We are actually an open access field (you can check the SCOAP3 agreement) and everybody is welcome to work on anything he wants. That is probably not true for all branches of science, but in particle physics where all the money is public, this holds.
I agree, this looks more like a discussion to have on a chat or with a beer than written on a forum ^^