4 ms·
> We can only ever _know_ when we are wrong about them. I think this is what the OP is saying though: There are many ideas about what dark matter is or could b
by AaronFriel 4y ago
> We can only ever _know_ when we are wrong about them.
I think this is what the OP is saying though: There are many ideas about what dark matter is or could be, but astrophysicists model the early universe using only baryonic matter, the results _are wrong_.
As a theory, it's quite simple: in its absence, the physics doesn't work. If you add matter that behaves in a particular way, simulations align to observation.
What is dark matter? shrug I don't think we can call any answer to that question a theory yet, we don't have any way to falsify it. We have many hypotheses, but those aren't theories.
- naasking 4y ago> As a theory, it's quite simple: in its absence, the physics doesn't work. If you add matter that behaves in a particular way, simulations align to observation. They actually don't, numerous extra parameters have to be added for DM to account for observations. DM was invented to fix one problem with observation, and 15 more have cropped up which don't fit.
- AaronFriel 4y agoWhat are those extra parameters?
- naasking 4y agoSee the paper [1] and the discussions of the times DM has been falsified. Extra parameters were then added to account for the new observations, where MOND makes certain parameter-free predictions that match observations. Clearly neither theory is a perfect fit for observations but the strong preference for DM seems unjustified. [1] From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331/htm
- AaronFriel 4y agoCould you elaborate on where dark matter was "falsified"?
- naikrovek 4y ago> There are many ideas about what dark matter is or could be, but astrophysicists model the early universe using only baryonic matter, the results _are wrong_. That doesn’t make any particular theory correct. It is only proof that our current model is wrong. Filling the gaps with math, and calling the math “dark matter” does not make dark matter correct; one or more of our existing models is wrong.
- AaronFriel 4y agoThe name dark matter is not a specific thing, rather, it's a collection of hypotheses whose characteristics are bounded by results in high energy experiments and astronomical observation.