Y
yevaud
Guest
It's a starting point (due to obvious similarities). All very "by the numbers," until it's either proven or falsified.
yevaud":h4g12cb9 said:Of course.
Nevertheless, methodical is how scientific investigation works, and even superficial similarities must be considered. Else one is violating the scientific method and Occam's Razor.
funknbluezer":1cl33pbc said:Right after the BB there was a large amount of matter and antimatter. There particles collided and realeased a tremendous amount of energy. Could this energy be what we are calling "dark energy"?
Perhaps the matter antimatter collisions didn't result in total annihilation and some sub atomic particles survived to form dark matter.
But it's much simpler for us to model the two as separate entities than to invoke some complicated formalism to unify them, while explaining why they have such different strengths and act at such different times.
I think Occam's razor, given the current state of theories, actually points towards them being separate - until someone comes up with a consistent and well-motivated theory otherwise
ramparts":1pfpvcik said:I really think that, given what we know now, they're about as obviously similar as gravity and magnetism. After all, they both make things accelerate, but have vastly different strengths