3 ms·

From her bio, she is a legit astrophysicist, who publishes in peer-reviewed journals. But more important than that, if you want more, you can read the paper he

by GuB-42 3y ago

From her bio, she is a legit astrophysicist, who publishes in peer-reviewed journals. But more important than that, if you want more, you can read the paper her entire video is based on [1] Also be aware that Sabine Hossenfelder, also a popular science YouTuber and published physicist released a video supportive of that paper, even though she was somewhat in favor of MOND before [2]. She even co-authored a paper about it [3] which she presented in a video [4] [1] https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3393 https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad3393 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lu9AxRtqA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4lu9AxRtqA [3] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10202 https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.10202 [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MVl1cSmYE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7MVl1cSmYE

tsunamifury 3y ago
Let’s turn science into commentator sports! That way an already needlessly polarized field full of petty researchers who promote poorly founded theories to the public in order to gain notoriety can continue to completely screw up physics in the public eye, and frankly in academia, too. Looking at you string theory.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  It's been that way for a long time. Einstein published a paper in support of Bose's statistics for integer-spin particles, explaining that no, that's not an off-by-one error, and now they're called Bose-Einstein statistics.
  - tsunamifury 3y ago
    Yea but YouTube personalities were never appealed to to find validation amount public opinion.
adrian_b 3y ago
Such papers only prove that the simplest formula proposed for MOND may be too simple. While it matches well many experimental facts, there also other experimental facts that appear to contradict it. There is an essential difference between a MOND-like theory and a dark matter based theory. For a MOND-like theory one has to choose some mathematical relationship that determines the gravitational forces, given the observed distribution of matter in the Universe. Then one must compute the expected movements and compare them with the observed movements, to verify or falsify the postulated mathematical model. On the other hand, any theory based on dark matter does not have any predictive power or any usefulness. Because the observed movements of the bodies in the Universe cannot be explained by the conventional mathematical model, one adds arbitrarily dark matter wherever it is necessary to remove the discrepancies in the observed movements. When one is free to add dark matter, then all mathematical models for gravitation become equivalent and none can be used to predict what we observe. Unless an alternative method for observing dark matter would be discovered, using it is just an euphemism for avoiding to recognize that the current model of gravitation is not accurate enough.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  But you're just demonstrating the annoying aspect of MOND: it's not one theory, so it fails that first requirement of being science, that it be falsifiable. We see this all the time when MOND is tested. It ends up failing, but then the proponents say "oh, well, it's not that MOND we're talking about". It's like some sort of pseudoscientific cockroach that keeps escaping after you crush it with a shoe.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    ... so just like supersymmetry and string theory?
    - pfdietz 3y ago
      Yes, just like that.
  - adrian_b 3y ago
    Any specific variant of MOND, with definite formulae for the gravitational quantities, is falsifiable. (Though it may not be very easy to verify or falsify it, because besides the hypothetical "dark matter" there also exists true dark matter, i.e. interstellar gas and dust clouds.) Any theory based on dark matter is not falsifiable, regardless what model is used for gravitation, because for now there is no constraint on the distribution of the dark matter. The only way for the theory of dark matter to become a scientific theory is to discover an alternative way to determine where the dark matter is located, besides placing it wherever necessary to remove the discrepancies between the observations of the movements of the celestial bodies and the predictions of the current model of gravitation.
  - nicktelford 3y ago
    Isn't this essentially the same problem with Dark Matter though? They keep looking for it, not finding it and proclaiming "well, it must be somewhere else!". I always got the impression that when Dark Matter was initially labelled as such, it was just a name for the discrepancy between theoretical models and observations; and that the name itself seems to have driven this idea that it's the observations that are wrong and not the models. Personally, when discussing Dark Matter vs. MOND, I think neither should be treated as a concrete "theory", but simply a different perspective on where the problem lies. "Dark Matter" is the idea that our observations are incomplete, and MOND is the idea that our theoretical models are wrong. Hopefully this conundrum is resolved within my lifetime, because I'd love to know what the answer is. It would be absolutely wild if they're both right i.e. that our observations are incomplete and our models are wrong.

by GuB-42 3y ago

tsunamifury 3y ago

Let’s turn science into commentator sports! That way an already needlessly polarized field full of petty researchers who promote poorly founded theories to the public in order to gain notoriety can continue to completely screw up physics in the public eye, and frankly in academia, too. Looking at you string theory.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
It's been that way for a long time. Einstein published a paper in support of Bose's statistics for integer-spin particles, explaining that no, that's not an off-by-one error, and now they're called Bose-Einstein statistics.
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  Yea but YouTube personalities were never appealed to to find validation amount public opinion.

adrian_b 3y ago

Such papers only prove that the simplest formula proposed for MOND may be too simple. While it matches well many experimental facts, there also other experimental facts that appear to contradict it. There is an essential difference between a MOND-like theory and a dark matter based theory. For a MOND-like theory one has to choose some mathematical relationship that determines the gravitational forces, given the observed distribution of matter in the Universe. Then one must compute the expected movements and compare them with the observed movements, to verify or falsify the postulated mathematical model. On the other hand, any theory based on dark matter does not have any predictive power or any usefulness. Because the observed movements of the bodies in the Universe cannot be explained by the conventional mathematical model, one adds arbitrarily dark matter wherever it is necessary to remove the discrepancies in the observed movements. When one is free to add dark matter, then all mathematical models for gravitation become equivalent and none can be used to predict what we observe. Unless an alternative method for observing dark matter would be discovered, using it is just an euphemism for avoiding to recognize that the current model of gravitation is not accurate enough.

pfdietz 3y ago
But you're just demonstrating the annoying aspect of MOND: it's not one theory, so it fails that first requirement of being science, that it be falsifiable. We see this all the time when MOND is tested. It ends up failing, but then the proponents say "oh, well, it's not that MOND we're talking about". It's like some sort of pseudoscientific cockroach that keeps escaping after you crush it with a shoe.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  ... so just like supersymmetry and string theory?
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    Yes, just like that.
- adrian_b 3y ago
  Any specific variant of MOND, with definite formulae for the gravitational quantities, is falsifiable. (Though it may not be very easy to verify or falsify it, because besides the hypothetical "dark matter" there also exists true dark matter, i.e. interstellar gas and dust clouds.) Any theory based on dark matter is not falsifiable, regardless what model is used for gravitation, because for now there is no constraint on the distribution of the dark matter. The only way for the theory of dark matter to become a scientific theory is to discover an alternative way to determine where the dark matter is located, besides placing it wherever necessary to remove the discrepancies between the observations of the movements of the celestial bodies and the predictions of the current model of gravitation.
- nicktelford 3y ago
  Isn't this essentially the same problem with Dark Matter though? They keep looking for it, not finding it and proclaiming "well, it must be somewhere else!". I always got the impression that when Dark Matter was initially labelled as such, it was just a name for the discrepancy between theoretical models and observations; and that the name itself seems to have driven this idea that it's the observations that are wrong and not the models. Personally, when discussing Dark Matter vs. MOND, I think neither should be treated as a concrete "theory", but simply a different perspective on where the problem lies. "Dark Matter" is the idea that our observations are incomplete, and MOND is the idea that our theoretical models are wrong. Hopefully this conundrum is resolved within my lifetime, because I'd love to know what the answer is. It would be absolutely wild if they're both right i.e. that our observations are incomplete and our models are wrong.