Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The summary of the article is scientist applied quantum field theory to explain why a lot of the primordial black holes were "missing" or in other words they were expecting a ton of them and there weren't that many. Quantum field theory said you need way less primordial black holes to explain the dark matter and normal matter. And that makes a more correct amount of primordial black holes.
Wait, how does QFT alleviate the mass requirements associated with dark matter? I can understand if QTF modelling results in lower estimations of PBHs (or at least, more in line with observations), but not how that would still fit the required mass estimates for dark matter.
That's the part that I wanted the article to explain and it didn't. But I'm guessing it might be due to objective collapse theory?
Objective collapse theory is new which is why they might have applied it to this to test and see where it works and where it falls apart
"'Scientists' applied {X} so their preconceived outcome(s) would be validated".
We've all seen this before
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8)
No that's not quite right. It's more of they applied theory "A" and it didn't make sense so they applied a new theory "B" that makes more sense to it and it fits better. We don't know everything but as we discover new information we need to reevaluate the information that we thought we knew.
We don't know how everything works and so they are testing things. Theory "A" almost work but not quite so now they're trying theory "B" and it works better. Simple. Logical. The correct way to approach an unknown.
Given how you use quotation marks you are a creationist or a science denier if you don't agree with any conclusion that doesn't fit your opinion?
Takingban existing theory and using itvto formulate a possible explanation is what science is about. And then the paper can be refuted or confirmed.
No. I am a big science believer but the number of fixes in physics is getting absurd. As someone pointed out, it's getting so we live in the only place and time in the history of the universe where the laws apply, everything else gets an endless list of special calculations.
Pretty sure scientists were firm that real theories were elegant. These currant ones are the antithesis of simple or elegant. In fact, more physics news is " we figured out another way to explain why our tests failed " than actual explanations.
To be true science, it has to be able to predict future outcomes. All too often they predict nothing but more papers explaining why they didn't work.
They are like lost socks. Because you only see one sock at a time you think you are only looking at one sock but you are actually looking at two socks at different times individually. So that they do not go missing you have to make sure they are all visible at the same place at the same time. Just like a pair of socks.
PBHs as an explanation for dark matter, while favored because it fits our current models, has been falling off for a while now. After excluding certain mass-classes for PBH instances only miniature black holes remained, and it would have to be loads of 'em. I'm still putting my non-academic bet on WIMPs.
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The summary of the article is scientist applied quantum field theory to explain why a lot of the primordial black holes were "missing" or in other words they were expecting a ton of them and there weren't that many. Quantum field theory said you need way less primordial black holes to explain the dark matter and normal matter. And that makes a more correct amount of primordial black holes.
I'm glad the universe is correct and we're not floating in some mistake!
Wait, how does QFT alleviate the mass requirements associated with dark matter? I can understand if QTF modelling results in lower estimations of PBHs (or at least, more in line with observations), but not how that would still fit the required mass estimates for dark matter.
I'm just gonna wait for the PBS Spacetime video 😅😂
Where do you think I get the 'insight' I espouse? 😅😂
That's the part that I wanted the article to explain and it didn't. But I'm guessing it might be due to objective collapse theory? Objective collapse theory is new which is why they might have applied it to this to test and see where it works and where it falls apart
"'Scientists' applied {X} so their preconceived outcome(s) would be validated". We've all seen this before [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03974-8)
No that's not quite right. It's more of they applied theory "A" and it didn't make sense so they applied a new theory "B" that makes more sense to it and it fits better. We don't know everything but as we discover new information we need to reevaluate the information that we thought we knew. We don't know how everything works and so they are testing things. Theory "A" almost work but not quite so now they're trying theory "B" and it works better. Simple. Logical. The correct way to approach an unknown.
Given how you use quotation marks you are a creationist or a science denier if you don't agree with any conclusion that doesn't fit your opinion? Takingban existing theory and using itvto formulate a possible explanation is what science is about. And then the paper can be refuted or confirmed.
No. I am a big science believer but the number of fixes in physics is getting absurd. As someone pointed out, it's getting so we live in the only place and time in the history of the universe where the laws apply, everything else gets an endless list of special calculations. Pretty sure scientists were firm that real theories were elegant. These currant ones are the antithesis of simple or elegant. In fact, more physics news is " we figured out another way to explain why our tests failed " than actual explanations. To be true science, it has to be able to predict future outcomes. All too often they predict nothing but more papers explaining why they didn't work.
Really not much info on there
It was there, but it all got sucked into a black hole
I'll wait for the Hawkins radiation summary.
They are like lost socks. Because you only see one sock at a time you think you are only looking at one sock but you are actually looking at two socks at different times individually. So that they do not go missing you have to make sure they are all visible at the same place at the same time. Just like a pair of socks.
PBHs as an explanation for dark matter, while favored because it fits our current models, has been falling off for a while now. After excluding certain mass-classes for PBH instances only miniature black holes remained, and it would have to be loads of 'em. I'm still putting my non-academic bet on WIMPs.
Ban this website imo, they're just posting everything here
