Despite pumping millions of dollars into scientific research to locate a hypothetical piece of matter, scientists report that no such matter has been found.
96% of the universe is thought to be made up of hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy. But the problem is, nobody has ever observed this matter. Nonetheless, one project, called the Large Underground Xenon (or LUX), cost $10 million and was unable to locate the elusive dark matter, which is thought to make up about 22% of matter in the known universe.
The multimillion dollar equipment used was thought to be sensitive and technically advanced enough to detect weakly interacting massive particles (or WIMPS), but scientists were disappointed that they found nothing.
Scientists have been searching for this particle for decades, and the research continues on board the International Space Station and the Large Hadron Collider located beneath the France-Switzerland border.
So what’s up with this matter, and why is it so hard to detect? Is it possible that these hypothetical entities don’t exist at all?
Well, it turns out that scientists need this matter to exist because, without it, all the physics supporting the Big Bang cosmology and other phenomena in the universe just don’t work. It’s perceived to be one of the most important problems in science to solve because of its implications in understanding how the universe works.
But if the Big Bang didn’t happen as described by modern cosmology, and if there are alternative explanations for the phenomena we observe in the galaxy without having to resort to hypothetical entities, then perhaps this abundant dark matter and dark energy doesn’t exist.
I find it interesting that some- like Richard Dawkins, Bill Nye, Neil deGrasse Tyson and other evolutionists who believe in this modern cosmology, along with its necessary hypothetical entities- go so far as to call those who don’t believe it anti-science. But who is really being “anti-science”? Believing all this by faith is itself a form of religion, yet many of these people denigrate religious explanations for the existence of the universe.
I think it’s much more believable that God created the universe in six days, just as the Bible claims. And I think the belief in hypothetical entities is evidence that the Big Bang cosmology is nothing more than a modern day mythology. These things are needed to prop up bad science, and it’s more reasonable to conclude that they don’t exist.
Still, the most ardent believers, such as Richard Gaitskell, one of the LUX spokesmen, is relentless in the search, claiming that “It’s certainly there. We know dark matter exists.” Even after 28 years searching for this matter Gaitskell says, “That’s why one doesn’t give up. We’ve got to figure out what this dark matter component is.” Neal Weiner, director of the Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics at New York University said, “It’s hard to know when we will find dark matter because we don’t know precisely what it is. Of course, that’s what makes the search for it such a big deal.” And that’s why they’re going to increase spending; a new project is set to begin in South Dakota where a $50 million dollar larger and more sensitive version of LUX will begin operating by 2020.
So how much money will be spent before scientists recognize that this matter doesn’t exist? I don’t expect that day to come any time soon because they’re invested in it by faith, as expressed by Gaitskell and Weiner. I think this is much like any area of evolutionary thought. The idea that life could evolve from non-life defies one of the most fundamental known laws in the universe: life only comes from life. Yet evolutionists disregard this fact because they know, by faith, that life couldn’t have been created by God, but had to have evolved from non-living chemicals.
On another side note, when looking at the cost of these scientific projects, I’m reminded of the skeptics who protested the life-size Noah’s Ark built in Williamstown, Kentucky, mocking those who built it, claiming that the $100 million dollars spent (privately funded) to build it could have been better spent on feeding the poor. But these same people have remained silent as $60 million (mostly government funded by tax-payers) is being spent between LUX and LX, and $13.25 billion dollars was spent on the Large Hadron Collider. And that’s not to mention the amount of money spent to search for aliens.
To conclude, it doesn’t surprise me that they’ve found nothing. I’d expect them to find no evidence of dark matter or dark energy, not because they’re not looking hard enough, but because it doesn’t exist. They’re not interested in alternative explanations that could explain the data- unless it were based on a strictly naturalistic explanation. No reference to supernatural causes are acceptable, and I think that’s one of the biggest problems with modern science. Even in the face of counter-evidence, the bias towards naturalistic explanations must be adhered to at all costs.
Pingback: Things I have read on the internet – 46 | clydeherrin
what alternatives do you propose?
Good question. We actually don’t need dark matter to explain an accelerating universe, which is one of the purposes of dark matter. Instead it can be explained by the cosmological general relativity of Moshe Carmeli. It can also be solved by the Hubble parameter. Here are two links if you want a more detailed explanation. The first one is a fairly technical explanation from John Hartnett, but he also provides some good summaries. I think it’s really just a matter of convention, just like Einstein was able to solve missing planets (Vulcan) with his General Theory of Relativity. Let me know what you think.
Dark matter has been unambiguously observed via gravitational lensing, meaning its existence is part of what creationists would call “observational science”. It definitely exists; we just don’t know what it is made of yet.
I disagree. What has been observed can be explained without evoking dark matter. Even the scientists in the article admit it’s possible they’re wrong; it’s just that they’re convinced it does exist, just like you, so they’ll keep searching.
I think you mean invoking, not evoking; clearly dark matter was evoked in this instance.
A competent scientist will always be willing to admit that they cannot claim 100% certainty about anything. Total certainty is the domain of faith, not science or logic. But the clear evidence of colliding galaxies with the concentration of mass displaced from the concentration of baryonic matter is as clear a smoking gun for dark matter as can be conceived.
Laypersons are probably not aware that baryonic matter must, by proven laws and by every rigorous test we have subjected it to, produce blackbody radiation. This is in fact a consequence of the most basic laws of thermodynamics. Concentrations of mass which neither absorb nor deflect nor emit light — which have no electromagnetic interactions at all — cannot be baryonic matter.
The search for this nonbaryonic “dark” matter is prompted largely by observations like these, and not exclusively by some misbegotten commitment to deep time. Trust me, no scientist investigating dark matter has any concerns about the validity of deep time.
I’ll also add that while the observed, measured concentrations of dark matter DO neatly solve the problem of galactic rotation curves, they are not necessary to do so. MOND, or modified newtonian dynamics, also does the trick. The scientists searching for dark matter are looking for particles which match observations, not trying to bolster deep time.
Yes, invoking, thanks for the correction.
There are other explanations for the observed phenomena so that we don’t need hypothetical entities such as dark matter. Even NASA has speculated that plausible explanations would include brown dwarfs (MACHOs) and supermassive black holes.
Further, there was an open letter to the scientific community signed by over 500 scientists rejecting the Big Bang and its associated hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy.
If our observations could be explained by appeal to MOND or massive compact halo objects, without needing to propose new particles, that’s what scientists would do. MOND and MaCHOs could explain galactic rotation speeds (which, by the way, are measured directly by redshift and are not based on hypotheses about deep time), but they do not explain the distribution of dark matter observed via gravitational lensing. Clusters of massive compact halo objects (RAMBOs) could explain dark matter distributions in the thin disk, but not outside of it.
So while the properties of dark matter certainly also tie into our observations of the Big Bang and its aftermath, there are plenty of reasons to search for dark matter that have nothing whatsoever to do with deep time or the Big Bang. So this article is wholly incorrect.
Sorry for the delay. Life gets busy on occasion.
I’m not sure what you mean by “this article” is wholly incorrect. Do you mean the article by Phys Org which admits they could be wrong about the existence of dark matter (however unlikely), or my article for pointing this out?
Anyway, perhaps someday we’ll know with absolute certainty whether you’re right or wrong. Looking over the comments section on Phys Org, it appears there are plenty of others skeptical about dark matter as well, so I think I’m in good company.