3 ms·

> 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

> 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 “Dark matter” is just a phenomenological name to whatever mechanism that might explain all the observations consistently. Under this banner, people have studied models of everything from axions to small black holes. Speaking as someone who’s worked in the field, nobody is “ignoring” alternatives to dark matter — if they could think of ways to make up new alternatives (leveraging MOND, or otherwise) they totally would do it — the problem is that most such alternatives raise more complicated questions like breaking the consistency our theory of gravity, or introducing bizarre quantum behavior of certain cosmological fields, etc. Maybe all those problems can also be solved — but nobody knows how! That’s why it appears like they “ignore” it. Further, any new theory going to supplant dark matter needs to explain not just galactic rotation curves, but also beat the Lambda CDM model in its ability to model/predict details of the cosmic microwave background radiation. AFAIK, MOND or whatever else is not even close, when you try to put all that together.

alrlroipsp 4y ago
> the problem is that most such alternatives raise more complicated questions like breaking the consistency our theory of gravity, or introducing bizarre quantum behavior of certain cosmological fields, etc. Maybe all those problems can also be solved — but nobody knows how! That’s why it appears like they “ignore” it. To me as a lay-man, this seems like you are indeed ignoring non-dark matter solutions, as dark matter allows you to add various magical elements to explain up whatever is missing in other models. This seems very un-scientific.
- MauranKilom 4y ago
  To me as a lay-man, it is unclear what you expect them to do instead. Which part of "nobody has come up with a theory that explains nearly as much as DM can explain" constitutes "ignoring"?
- ssivark 4y ago
  > dark matter allows you to add various magical elements to explain up whatever is missing in other models. It’s not like physicists are looking for every little possibility to be fanciful. Here’s the irony — The “DAMA” experiment has been claiming to have discovered dark matter particles for years, but most physicists don’t trust that the experiment is understood well enough to call it a victory. The process of “adding particles” is an extremely rigorous one (the various detailed checks and stringent requirements involved are unsexy content ignored by pop science). Adding particles is how we discovered the Higgs boson, the weak nuclear force carriers and the internal structure of the proton. It is a battle tested process that underpins the tremendous success of particle physics in the twentieth century. > To me as a lay-man, this seems like you are indeed ignoring non-dark matter solutions Seems like there is a massive disconnect with how one actually “does research”. Let’s say I completely agree with you and want to come up with alternative models, and I’ve read the literature — but don’t know how to solve the hairy outstanding problems. What do I actually do when I get up and go to work tomorrow morning? :-P

alrlroipsp 4y ago

> the problem is that most such alternatives raise more complicated questions like breaking the consistency our theory of gravity, or introducing bizarre quantum behavior of certain cosmological fields, etc. Maybe all those problems can also be solved — but nobody knows how! That’s why it appears like they “ignore” it. To me as a lay-man, this seems like you are indeed ignoring non-dark matter solutions, as dark matter allows you to add various magical elements to explain up whatever is missing in other models. This seems very un-scientific.

MauranKilom 4y ago
To me as a lay-man, it is unclear what you expect them to do instead. Which part of "nobody has come up with a theory that explains nearly as much as DM can explain" constitutes "ignoring"?
ssivark 4y ago
> dark matter allows you to add various magical elements to explain up whatever is missing in other models. It’s not like physicists are looking for every little possibility to be fanciful. Here’s the irony — The “DAMA” experiment has been claiming to have discovered dark matter particles for years, but most physicists don’t trust that the experiment is understood well enough to call it a victory. The process of “adding particles” is an extremely rigorous one (the various detailed checks and stringent requirements involved are unsexy content ignored by pop science). Adding particles is how we discovered the Higgs boson, the weak nuclear force carriers and the internal structure of the proton. It is a battle tested process that underpins the tremendous success of particle physics in the twentieth century. > To me as a lay-man, this seems like you are indeed ignoring non-dark matter solutions Seems like there is a massive disconnect with how one actually “does research”. Let’s say I completely agree with you and want to come up with alternative models, and I’ve read the literature — but don’t know how to solve the hairy outstanding problems. What do I actually do when I get up and go to work tomorrow morning? :-P