4 ms·
Does "WIMPS don't explain observed data" also exclude "matter in other M-Theory branes exerts a gravitational influence on matter in our own" as an explanation
by blincoln 3y ago
Does "WIMPS don't explain observed data" also exclude "matter in other M-Theory branes exerts a gravitational influence on matter in our own" as an explanation for dark matter?
The main argument I've seen against this is that matter interacting gravitationally across branes would cause a sort of n-body problem condition where everything in a particular sphere of influence would orbit continuously around the center of mass instead of settling into a lump, but maybe that explains why some planet-scale (or larger) objects have spinning cores?
- addaon 3y agoI don't believe anyone's casting around too hard for an alternate explanation for conservation of angular momentum, which is a consequence of rotational symmetry of physical laws, a relatively intuitive and desired property.
- icapybara 3y ago"When you hear hoofprints, think horses, not zebras." You can always contrive a more complicated structure to explain some observation. There is no evidence branes exist. We are looking for an explanation to the "dark matter problem" that doesn't require asserting that a ton of new and unproven physics exists.
- sleeplessworld 3y agoThis may point to a key problem in the hypotheses, theories and conclusions. When you are in Africa, a "think horses" paradigm, may lead you very astray in your thinking.