Recent comments in /f/space

YawnTractor_1756 t1_jc7hqqh wrote

I find articles talking about dark matter/energy to be manipulative, here is why.

If you read the article itself you'll find that those names were invented as merely labels for the inconsistencies in how Universe behaved. So yes dark energy "exists" because inconsistency exists, and dark energy is merely a label name for that inconsistency, but nothing more. It's not given nor claimed by scientists that it is proven to actually exist as energy.

The manipulative part is that the words used in those labels bear their own meaning. "Matter" means something objectively detectable made of physical particles which you're able to interact with. But we don't actually know if that's the case.

What is more concerning is statements like this:

>Perhaps dark matter will never be detected, apart from its gravitational effects. Even so, that would not be an argument against its existence

Saying that if we cannot detect something does not mean that something does not exist its basically Russell's teapot claim. It is very concerning to see that in an article that claims to be scientific.

1

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_jc7etnq wrote

It's honestly amazing how often dark energy is brought up without mentioning that:

  1. non-zero vacuum energy is a prediction of QFT

  2. non-zero vacuum energy would contribute to the cosmological constant

Instead people just use the same line over and over about how it's completely mysterious and we have no idea what it is.

It's nice to see an article written by an actual astrophysicist for a popsci audience that mentions these things and actually clarifies some of the things that popsci "journalists" like to make sound as sensationalized as possible.

2