6 ms·

Almost certainly the opposite. More massive galaxies tend to form in more massive dark matter halos.

ccvannorman 3y ago
"More massive galaxies tend to form in more massive dark matter halos according to our best current theories." Many believe that MOND may better explain observations, and JWST continues to be a great source of data that may help us update our best models. I believe this commenter was indicating with their prediction that our current theories of dark matter are wrong.
- Magiccupcake 3y ago
  Last time i looked into MOND it remains relatively unconvincing. The primary reason for this being that it is hard to make the universe look like it should with simulations. We are doing better so far with the lambda-CDM model so far. If someone comes up with a MOND simulation that is better than our current ones it may gain more traction.
uoaei 3y ago
Love it when armchair physicists fly in with their "dark matter is obviously correct" takes.
- sesm 3y ago
  “Dark matter” is a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of matter not visible by other means, and when estimate can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the mass of that matter. There is no conventionally accepted explanation of dark matter, but great thing about scientific method is that it aims to capture facts and observations without interpretation. So I stand behind “dark matter is obviously correct”. Although I’m pretty sure that WIMPs are BS.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    "Phlogiston"/"ether"/take-your-pick-of-fictitious-forces was a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of an active force not visible by other means, and when estimates can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the existence of that force. Except none of these things are properly said to exist. Dark matter is and always has been "fitting gaps in our current model to observed data". It's retroactive by construction and almost the definition of begging the question. Explanations for material origins as "dark matter" have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a lack of imagination and humility. I could explain fire by positing and observing phlogiston by fitting the residuals of incomplete models to data and I would have just as much "evidence" to stand on as dark matter zealots. It is extremely anti-scientific, indeed an offense to the process of science itself, to 1) ignore the basic facts above to inform the assertion of such baseless claims and 2) to assert those claims so strongly.
    - sesm 3y ago
      If several independent observation gave a similar estimation for the mass of “phlogiston” or density of “ether” that would be a very significant phenomena worth studying.
      - uoaei 3y ago
        Phlogiston was a result of multiple independent observations: combustion, rusting, any number of exothermic reactions... it was still wrong. As a bit of an aside, I've noticed a strong correlation with misuse of the singular and plural forms of the word "phenomenon" with non-physicists who want to sound like they know what they're talking about. By your standards, I have a pretty good theory that you're not a physicist. Are you comfortable applying your flavor of analysis and rigor to this observation, too...?
        sesm 3y ago
        I have MS in Physics but didn’t pursue a PhD and went for job in programming for money. Not sure if it counts or not. English is not my native language and most of my papers were in my native language (except one in Physical Review Letters), so my ‘physics English’ is pretty bad.
- Magiccupcake 3y ago
  I'm not an armchair physicist, I'm actively working on my PhD in Physics. Dark matter is the prevailing theory because it best explains our current observations. I'm aware that doesn't mean its right, and we don't have conclusive proof that it is. There's definitely a problem with our current model looking at the Hubble tension, but the reason for that is still unknown. So I love when armchair physicists come in and say dark matter is obviously wrong.
  - uoaei 3y ago
    "Best explains our current observations" is tautological because you can imagine invisible mass for any system to explain arbitrary observations provided you are only modeling the system instantaneously (note galactic vs human timescales). Dark matter fanatics want to assert the supremacy of a system that is literally derived by fitting residuals using computational models, but anything can be explained that way using results of a simulation if you wanted. I could elaborate a complicated system of invisible mass to explain geocentrism if I wanted. Doesn't make it a good model. You will note I didn't actually say "dark matter is wrong" but rather "there is nothing to the very foundations of the model itself". I'm not arguing against dark matter so much as for a theory of substance.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    > actively working on my PhD Not paid enough to afford an armchair, you mean? :) > it best explains our current observations I always figured dark matter to be nonsense because nobody ever listed any said observations, but only ever parroted that line. Even xkcd is guilty of it https://xkcd.com/1758 https://xkcd.com/1758 So better start giving out examples or you won't ever convince anyone. I'll start. The one that convinced me is the Bullet Cluster collision where it seems that regular matter collided and slowed down but something else which contributes most to the overall mass passed right through without interacting at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to...

"More massive galaxies tend to form in more massive dark matter halos according to our best current theories." Many believe that MOND may better explain observations, and JWST continues to be a great source of data that may help us update our best models. I believe this commenter was indicating with their prediction that our current theories of dark matter are wrong.

Magiccupcake 3y ago
Last time i looked into MOND it remains relatively unconvincing. The primary reason for this being that it is hard to make the universe look like it should with simulations. We are doing better so far with the lambda-CDM model so far. If someone comes up with a MOND simulation that is better than our current ones it may gain more traction.

uoaei 3y ago

Love it when armchair physicists fly in with their "dark matter is obviously correct" takes.

sesm 3y ago
“Dark matter” is a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of matter not visible by other means, and when estimate can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the mass of that matter. There is no conventionally accepted explanation of dark matter, but great thing about scientific method is that it aims to capture facts and observations without interpretation. So I stand behind “dark matter is obviously correct”. Although I’m pretty sure that WIMPs are BS.
- uoaei 3y ago
  "Phlogiston"/"ether"/take-your-pick-of-fictitious-forces was a number of observed phenomena that independently hint at presence of an active force not visible by other means, and when estimates can be inferred from observations give roughly the same estimate for the existence of that force. Except none of these things are properly said to exist. Dark matter is and always has been "fitting gaps in our current model to observed data". It's retroactive by construction and almost the definition of begging the question. Explanations for material origins as "dark matter" have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with a lack of imagination and humility. I could explain fire by positing and observing phlogiston by fitting the residuals of incomplete models to data and I would have just as much "evidence" to stand on as dark matter zealots. It is extremely anti-scientific, indeed an offense to the process of science itself, to 1) ignore the basic facts above to inform the assertion of such baseless claims and 2) to assert those claims so strongly.
  - sesm 3y ago
    If several independent observation gave a similar estimation for the mass of “phlogiston” or density of “ether” that would be a very significant phenomena worth studying.
    - uoaei 3y ago
      Phlogiston was a result of multiple independent observations: combustion, rusting, any number of exothermic reactions... it was still wrong. As a bit of an aside, I've noticed a strong correlation with misuse of the singular and plural forms of the word "phenomenon" with non-physicists who want to sound like they know what they're talking about. By your standards, I have a pretty good theory that you're not a physicist. Are you comfortable applying your flavor of analysis and rigor to this observation, too...?
      - sesm 3y ago
        I have MS in Physics but didn’t pursue a PhD and went for job in programming for money. Not sure if it counts or not. English is not my native language and most of my papers were in my native language (except one in Physical Review Letters), so my ‘physics English’ is pretty bad.
Magiccupcake 3y ago
I'm not an armchair physicist, I'm actively working on my PhD in Physics. Dark matter is the prevailing theory because it best explains our current observations. I'm aware that doesn't mean its right, and we don't have conclusive proof that it is. There's definitely a problem with our current model looking at the Hubble tension, but the reason for that is still unknown. So I love when armchair physicists come in and say dark matter is obviously wrong.
- uoaei 3y ago
  "Best explains our current observations" is tautological because you can imagine invisible mass for any system to explain arbitrary observations provided you are only modeling the system instantaneously (note galactic vs human timescales). Dark matter fanatics want to assert the supremacy of a system that is literally derived by fitting residuals using computational models, but anything can be explained that way using results of a simulation if you wanted. I could elaborate a complicated system of invisible mass to explain geocentrism if I wanted. Doesn't make it a good model. You will note I didn't actually say "dark matter is wrong" but rather "there is nothing to the very foundations of the model itself". I'm not arguing against dark matter so much as for a theory of substance.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  > actively working on my PhD Not paid enough to afford an armchair, you mean? :) > it best explains our current observations I always figured dark matter to be nonsense because nobody ever listed any said observations, but only ever parroted that line. Even xkcd is guilty of it https://xkcd.com/1758 https://xkcd.com/1758 So better start giving out examples or you won't ever convince anyone. I'll start. The one that convinced me is the Bullet Cluster collision where it seems that regular matter collided and slowed down but something else which contributes most to the overall mass passed right through without interacting at all: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to_dark_matter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster#Significance_to...