6 ms·

I don't understand this: "Without such theory, claiming DM doesn't exist is simply stupid IMO." You are saying that without another theory to explain something

I don't understand this: "Without such theory, claiming DM doesn't exist is simply stupid IMO." You are saying that without another theory to explain something, the current theory must be true because ... How does this logic work exactly? In the middle ages, there wasn't a theory that explained headaches, so dismissing the idea that we should cut hole in people's skulls to let out the evil spirits is "stupid"? Dismissing the idea that lighting is caused by Zeus being angry is "stupid" because there is no other theory yet?

throwawaymaths 4y ago
I mean MOND has made "surprising predictions that have come true". Here's one that seems very relevant: https://tritonstation.com/2022/01/03/what-jwst-will-see/ https://tritonstation.com/2022/01/03/what-jwst-will-see/
- scotty79 4y ago
  Hasn't MOND been disproven by observed existance of galaxy without dark matter?
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    No? Those galaxies are ultradiffuse galaxies and if their distance estimates are off by about 25%, which is reasonable -- we don't have good models for distances to such cosmic entities -- then the calculation for their rotations bring them in line with expected.
Tagbert 4y ago
Theories are not necessarily absolutely true. They are models that describe and help us understand problems. In most (all?) cases they are approximations. We know that there are problems with them but they are the best tool we have to understand something. Until another tool comes along that works better, the current tool will sufficient. We know that General Relativity is incomplete. It cannot describe the work at high energies or very small scales. It is useful as far as it goes but it is not a perfect match. Quantum Mechanics does describe the world of the small and the hot, but we cannot apply it to the larger world. QD, too, is incomplete. We look for a new theory that can combine the features of both but it evades us, so far. Dark Matter is a similar theory. It describes a world. It seems to describe this work better than other theories like MOND. Looking for actual dark matter will let us see if DM is a good enough theory or not. If another theory can be found that is a better match, we can switch to that. In the meantime, every time we continue to try to verify/disprove DM.
- spfzero 4y ago
  The theories you mention (other than Dark Matter) actually have experimental evidence to support them. They are in a completely different league.
- thayne 4y ago
  We've been looking for dark matter for a long time without success. Until we actually find it, I think it is premature to dismiss out of hand other theories that explain the same phenomena. I'm not sure MOND is any better than DM, but I think it is worth at least pursuing the idea that maybe DM doesn't exist and there is something about gravity that isn't fully explained by general relativity.
  - parineum 4y ago
    >but I think it is worth at least pursuing the idea that maybe DM doesn't exist and there is something about gravity that isn't fully explained by general relativity. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. However, the current observations are best explained by dark matter. The various MOND models don't fit as well. We either actually detect and confirm dark matter or someone comes up with a MOND model that fits as well or better and has testable predictions. When people deride MOND, it's not to say that it can't be an answer later but people who are pushing it now are all ignoring some gaping hole in their theory. Continuing research is fine but, confidence wise, dark matter is in the lead by a lot.
    - throwawaymaths 4y ago
      It's easy seem like youre in the lead when you have one free parameter for every galaxy.
      - hither_shores 4y ago
        Dark matter ratios are not free parameters, because galaxies did not form through independent processes. The evidence for a highly homogeneous early universe is overwhelming, and any dark matter candidate that required large-scale inhomogeneity would be rejected out of hand.
nomel 4y ago
> You are saying that without another theory to explain something, the current theory must be true because ... Change that "must" to a "may" and you have something that matches what was written in GP.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jacquesm 4y ago
> In the middle ages, there wasn't a theory that explained headaches, so dismissing the idea that we should cut hole in people's skulls to let out the evil spirits is "stupid"? > Dismissing the idea that lighting is caused by Zeus being angry is "stupid" because there is no other theory yet? I think you could have picked far better examples.
bjarneh 4y ago
> Dismissing the idea that lighting is caused by Zeus being angry is "stupid" because there is no other theory yet? It's not true that there are no other theories; here in Norway we believe that it's caused by Thor hammering away up there. Some say he's hammering away at dark matter...
sam0x17 4y ago
People were being a bit stupid when they dogmatically stuck with the idea that "the earth is the center of the universe" and had to come up with ridiculously complex epicycles and systems of motion to describe the movement of the planets, when really if they had just change their assumptions and frame of reference, it was quite simple to see the planets were orbiting around the sun rather than in some weird epicycle involving the earth. The impression a lot of people have about dark matter is I think similar -- dark matter / dark energy basically comes up as an explanation for why theory doesn't match what we observe. Thus a lot of people assume there is simply a more reasonable explanation, like a hidden variable we haven't considered, that would result in a theory that matches our observations. When I was in high school physics this was my assumption as well. I think if that were really the problem, though, someone would have solved it by now. That said, never underestimate an entire school of thought's inability to see things differently.
adrianN 4y ago
There are no true theories, only theories that agree with observations and allow useful predictions.
zamalek 4y ago
Because of this (from the article): > (b) We need to scientifically understand why the dark-matter based model, being the most falsified physical theory in the history of humankind, continues to be religiously believed to be true by the vast majority of the modern, highly-educated scientists. This is a problem for the sociological and philosophical sciences and suggests a breakdown of the scientific method [18]. There are few hot takes I agree with more. I don't care if the opponents of DM/DE are proponents of MOND, or proponents of something else involving pixies and turtles. We should continue to investigate DM/DE, but not with the religious fervor that we do today.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

I mean MOND has made "surprising predictions that have come true". Here's one that seems very relevant: https://tritonstation.com/2022/01/03/what-jwst-will-see/ https://tritonstation.com/2022/01/03/what-jwst-will-see/

scotty79 4y ago
Hasn't MOND been disproven by observed existance of galaxy without dark matter?
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  No? Those galaxies are ultradiffuse galaxies and if their distance estimates are off by about 25%, which is reasonable -- we don't have good models for distances to such cosmic entities -- then the calculation for their rotations bring them in line with expected.

Tagbert 4y ago

Theories are not necessarily absolutely true. They are models that describe and help us understand problems. In most (all?) cases they are approximations. We know that there are problems with them but they are the best tool we have to understand something. Until another tool comes along that works better, the current tool will sufficient. We know that General Relativity is incomplete. It cannot describe the work at high energies or very small scales. It is useful as far as it goes but it is not a perfect match. Quantum Mechanics does describe the world of the small and the hot, but we cannot apply it to the larger world. QD, too, is incomplete. We look for a new theory that can combine the features of both but it evades us, so far. Dark Matter is a similar theory. It describes a world. It seems to describe this work better than other theories like MOND. Looking for actual dark matter will let us see if DM is a good enough theory or not. If another theory can be found that is a better match, we can switch to that. In the meantime, every time we continue to try to verify/disprove DM.

spfzero 4y ago
The theories you mention (other than Dark Matter) actually have experimental evidence to support them. They are in a completely different league.
thayne 4y ago
We've been looking for dark matter for a long time without success. Until we actually find it, I think it is premature to dismiss out of hand other theories that explain the same phenomena. I'm not sure MOND is any better than DM, but I think it is worth at least pursuing the idea that maybe DM doesn't exist and there is something about gravity that isn't fully explained by general relativity.
- parineum 4y ago
  >but I think it is worth at least pursuing the idea that maybe DM doesn't exist and there is something about gravity that isn't fully explained by general relativity. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this. However, the current observations are best explained by dark matter. The various MOND models don't fit as well. We either actually detect and confirm dark matter or someone comes up with a MOND model that fits as well or better and has testable predictions. When people deride MOND, it's not to say that it can't be an answer later but people who are pushing it now are all ignoring some gaping hole in their theory. Continuing research is fine but, confidence wise, dark matter is in the lead by a lot.
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    It's easy seem like youre in the lead when you have one free parameter for every galaxy.
    - hither_shores 4y ago
      Dark matter ratios are not free parameters, because galaxies did not form through independent processes. The evidence for a highly homogeneous early universe is overwhelming, and any dark matter candidate that required large-scale inhomogeneity would be rejected out of hand.

nomel 4y ago

> You are saying that without another theory to explain something, the current theory must be true because ... Change that "must" to a "may" and you have something that matches what was written in GP.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jacquesm 4y ago

> In the middle ages, there wasn't a theory that explained headaches, so dismissing the idea that we should cut hole in people's skulls to let out the evil spirits is "stupid"? > Dismissing the idea that lighting is caused by Zeus being angry is "stupid" because there is no other theory yet? I think you could have picked far better examples.

bjarneh 4y ago

> Dismissing the idea that lighting is caused by Zeus being angry is "stupid" because there is no other theory yet? It's not true that there are no other theories; here in Norway we believe that it's caused by Thor hammering away up there. Some say he's hammering away at dark matter...

sam0x17 4y ago

People were being a bit stupid when they dogmatically stuck with the idea that "the earth is the center of the universe" and had to come up with ridiculously complex epicycles and systems of motion to describe the movement of the planets, when really if they had just change their assumptions and frame of reference, it was quite simple to see the planets were orbiting around the sun rather than in some weird epicycle involving the earth. The impression a lot of people have about dark matter is I think similar -- dark matter / dark energy basically comes up as an explanation for why theory doesn't match what we observe. Thus a lot of people assume there is simply a more reasonable explanation, like a hidden variable we haven't considered, that would result in a theory that matches our observations. When I was in high school physics this was my assumption as well. I think if that were really the problem, though, someone would have solved it by now. That said, never underestimate an entire school of thought's inability to see things differently.

adrianN 4y ago

There are no true theories, only theories that agree with observations and allow useful predictions.

zamalek 4y ago

Because of this (from the article): > (b) We need to scientifically understand why the dark-matter based model, being the most falsified physical theory in the history of humankind, continues to be religiously believed to be true by the vast majority of the modern, highly-educated scientists. This is a problem for the sociological and philosophical sciences and suggests a breakdown of the scientific method [18]. There are few hot takes I agree with more. I don't care if the opponents of DM/DE are proponents of MOND, or proponents of something else involving pixies and turtles. We should continue to investigate DM/DE, but not with the religious fervor that we do today.