4 ms·

So it's an absolute moonshot that posits that all observed discrepencies of galactic rotation curves is actually due to a coincidental and highly unlikely distr

So it's an absolute moonshot that posits that all observed discrepencies of galactic rotation curves is actually due to a coincidental and highly unlikely distribution of topological defects (that are not consistent with the full field equations) that have not been observed, and also fail to explain every other feature of dark matter at various different scales. nice. Its fine for a paper but doesn't really make sense as an article unless you are more interested in ad revenue from titles like "we don't need mass for gravity" than the ideas being presented. These science article websites live solely off of people who aren't equipped with the prerequisite background to actually critically parse the ideas that are being presented. This is probably the reason why everyone ~online~ (and not in departments) loved string theory two decades ago, and virulently hates it today, and also think that dark matter "is just a bunch of BS from the physics establishment" and that things like MOND or this are even remote competitors to the general consensus (which is basically just - we have no idea but we probably just need an extension to the standard model / quantum gravity at somepoint in the far future).

nightowl_games 2y ago
> not in departments I don't think it's valid to lay the blame for the failure of string theory on the media. There are plenty of academics who pushed string theory for years and years and years. The media and public got tired of hearing about it far before they got tired of researching it.
- monadINtop 2y ago
  yeah, and they pushed it as a theory of everything (which I think they had justification to believe for the first few decades [~] to get funding. So I also blame the entire economic system that academia is unfortunately embedded in. [~] It still isn't neccesarily ruled out, it's just incredibly unfeasible at the moment as a physical theory since it is currently very poorly understood and like centuries away from experimental tests (as is any GUT or QG theory i.e. this is not a criticism of string theory but basically any theory past the standard model). However it is extremely interesting currently as a subject in mathematics, and it has deep connections with current research in algebraic geometry and the geometric langlands program.
sho 2y ago
> This is probably the reason why everyone ~online~ (and not in departments) loved string theory two decades ago, and virulently hates it today Hang on. Which one are you trying to say is right or wrong? As far as I can tell, everyone should hate string theory, or at least the failures and pathologies of the scientific/academic system it has come to represent.
- monadINtop 2y ago
  No one should hate string theory??? No one should hate any area of valid research? That sounds extremely dogmatic and reactionary. String theory specifically is an extremely rich and fruitful theory that has had huge application to mathematics (mirror symmetry, no ghost-conjecture and the mysterious moonshine etc.) as well as inspiration for theoretical physics (AdS-CFT, Supersymmetry etc.). It is telling that none of the loudest voices telling people to "hate" an area of theoretical research have studied it (or often studied any physics or math, since the technical details, or even a grounded understanding, are superfluous to their "arguments"). >Hang on. Which one are you trying to say is right or wrong? I'm saying they are both wrong If you want to hate something, hate the pop-sci articles that sold it as a "theory of everything" for 20 years, and hate the environment that made it neccesary for researchers to peddle that bullshit in pursuit of funding, don't dogmatically hate an entirely valid area of research just because some mouth pieces who peddle narratives of a very technical field to an audience who aren't able to meaningfully engage with it, have decided to turn against it (i.e. Sabine hossenfield and eric weinstein or whatever their names are).

nightowl_games 2y ago

> not in departments I don't think it's valid to lay the blame for the failure of string theory on the media. There are plenty of academics who pushed string theory for years and years and years. The media and public got tired of hearing about it far before they got tired of researching it.

monadINtop 2y ago
yeah, and they pushed it as a theory of everything (which I think they had justification to believe for the first few decades [~] to get funding. So I also blame the entire economic system that academia is unfortunately embedded in. [~] It still isn't neccesarily ruled out, it's just incredibly unfeasible at the moment as a physical theory since it is currently very poorly understood and like centuries away from experimental tests (as is any GUT or QG theory i.e. this is not a criticism of string theory but basically any theory past the standard model). However it is extremely interesting currently as a subject in mathematics, and it has deep connections with current research in algebraic geometry and the geometric langlands program.

sho 2y ago

> This is probably the reason why everyone ~online~ (and not in departments) loved string theory two decades ago, and virulently hates it today Hang on. Which one are you trying to say is right or wrong? As far as I can tell, everyone should hate string theory, or at least the failures and pathologies of the scientific/academic system it has come to represent.

monadINtop 2y ago
No one should hate string theory??? No one should hate any area of valid research? That sounds extremely dogmatic and reactionary. String theory specifically is an extremely rich and fruitful theory that has had huge application to mathematics (mirror symmetry, no ghost-conjecture and the mysterious moonshine etc.) as well as inspiration for theoretical physics (AdS-CFT, Supersymmetry etc.). It is telling that none of the loudest voices telling people to "hate" an area of theoretical research have studied it (or often studied any physics or math, since the technical details, or even a grounded understanding, are superfluous to their "arguments"). >Hang on. Which one are you trying to say is right or wrong? I'm saying they are both wrong If you want to hate something, hate the pop-sci articles that sold it as a "theory of everything" for 20 years, and hate the environment that made it neccesary for researchers to peddle that bullshit in pursuit of funding, don't dogmatically hate an entirely valid area of research just because some mouth pieces who peddle narratives of a very technical field to an audience who aren't able to meaningfully engage with it, have decided to turn against it (i.e. Sabine hossenfield and eric weinstein or whatever their names are).