Some of the models of physics are now known to break down under certain conditions. In other words the models are not completely explanatory. This conundrum is a serious blow to the models, which work well mostly, and which are based on and require the stability and continuity of the characteristics of the universe.
Rather than investigate the possibility that the universe is actually not based on stable and continuous properties (Hume would sit upright in his grave), the proposals are made that there exist mysterious, undetectable, untestable or "dark" complements to the well-known mass/energy components which constitute the existence part of the universe (within space and time).
So the failure of the models is blamed on the Darks: dark mass and dark energy. This opens entirely new fields of scientific endeavors to be pursued (and funded). A recent expansion of the darks includes dark photons, dark atoms and dark electromagnetic energy, even dark galaxies. Other dark proposals include the existence of dark heat radiation warming nearby planets which are thought to exist without being associated with a star. Other uses of dark matter include this: "Astrophysicists suggest behavior of Fermi bubbles may be explained by dark matter". A definite benefit of the darks is that they may be defined specifically to account for the particular failures of a given model.
Dark matter has all sorts of uses in explaining why models don't work, and publishing papers (the currency of science). So Dark Matter can be added to the growing list of sciences which are not based on objective knowledge, i.e. empiricism, but are rather based on raw inference rather than replicable demonstration. The darks are the equivalent of demons, only focused on providing explanans where physicists can't explain the failures of their models: they are demons of the gaps.
It is not possible to explore a non-linear universe, one which changes its own rules mid-stream. It is a long held axiom that the universe just is, and just is consistent. Legitimate science cannot deal with a universe which is not totally beholden to cause and effect which is visible and testable. So the universe must be forced, intellectually, into the materialist box using whatever techniques can be dreamed up to do so.
3 comments:
Please spare me the spurious claims that references to "dark" matter (regardless of whether it exists or not) are coded references to racial discriminatory attitudes, a la Ms. Browne-Marshal, posted earlier.
Newton's "laws" of physics had to be extended through the theory of relativity. Relativity had to be extended through quantum physics. If the current models do not capture REALITY, then something must be wrong with reality. Hardly.
Repeating: when there is a difference between the map and the terrain, BELIEVE THE TERRAIN!
This also illustrates the never-ending quest for "final solutions" based on science, which can only provide contingent answers. Whether the search is headed into a cul-de0sac or not, the quest continues, and that means "We need more government grant money!"
The quest for the one unifying theory is driven (in part) by the naming convention and the craving for historical fame: "Newtonian Mechanics" for example. If such a theory exists, it will be named for the theorizer, who will be famous for all human history. The elite status of the scientist will be elevated to near god-like status of the individual.
It is interesting that one of the underlying foundational metaphysical presumptions by which science qua science can be conducted is the ASSUMPTION that the universe is ordered rationally, and that the underlying order is open to discovery. If that assumption is tossed out the window, then science as a rational endeavor ceases to exist.
Rhetorical question: What irrational process could be used to replace the rational process of scientific discovery and how could it be trusted to produce "true" results?!?
Post a Comment