Caption: an interview dialogue
- Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations? [the “dark matter models” and “to explain observations” parts are poorly edited onto the image, overlaying the original text]
- In my view, they are unsuited.
- Why?
- That’s my opinion, don’t ask me why.
End of caption
Dark matter is the mainstream among physicists, but internet commentators keep saying it can’t be right because it “feels off”.
Of course, skepticism is good for science! You just need to justify it more than saying the mainstream “feels off”.
For people who prefer alternative explanations over dark matter for non-vibe-based reasons, I would love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment!
You must log in or register to comment.
All models are wrong. Some are useful.
This, a model is a human tool and it’s as useful as it is useful.
Isn’t the question in itself wrong? “Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations” suggests that dark matter is a model we invented to explain something else. But as I understand it, dark matter is the observation itself and we need to come up with an explanation for it. Cf. Angela Collier’s video on exactly this.
But it is a model we invented no? To explain the astrophysical and cosmological observations.
Among all those observations, a commonality is that it looks like there is something that behaves like matter (as opposed to vacuum or radiation) and interact mostly via gravity (as opposed to electromagnetically, etc.). That’s why we invented dark matter.
The “it is unsuited” opinion in this meme is to poke at internet commentators who say that there must be an alternate explanation that does not involve new matter, because according to them all things must reflect light otherwise it would feel off.
Once you believe dark matter exists, you still need to come up with an explanation of what that matter actually is. That’s a separate question.
(I’m not trying to make fun of people who study MOND or the like of that. just the people who non-constructively deny dark matter based on vibes.)
No, as far as I understand it, it isn’t something we invented. It is rather a placeholder for observations we made. In many different contexts we observe something that is matter but that doesn’t seem to interact with anything else. We call this dark matter. And then there are theories of dark matter that try to explain the observations of dark matter. But dark matter is that what we observe, not a theory or invention.
I think we just differ on the terminology of invention versus observation. What draws the line between a well-supported theory and an observation in the end comes down to how tangible you think the data is.
Yes, I see your point and agree :)
Didn’t someone come up with an alternative model that said that, because galaxies vary in mass, time must also varies between galaxies; and said model was able to predict the effects of dark matter and dark energy?
Edit: it seems like a painfully obvious statement, which is why it confused me when I first read it. Like, no shit time is gonna vary between galaxies due to differences in mass.
I’ve heard of something similar that is able to predict an effect of dark matter (the rotation curves), but AFAIK it couldn’t match other observations (bullet clusters, etc.) correctly.
Do you have a link for the model you’re talking about. I’m curious.
That disputes dark energy accelerating the expansion of the universe. But AFAIK it doesn’t explain dark matter.
Still, I find it very compelling. And I hope it might also solve the crisis in cosmology. At the very least it should get rid of the lambda in lambda CDM.
MOND is my personal favorite way to avoid dark matter.
MOND is a wonderful way to explain rotation curves but since then with new observations (bullet cluster, gravitational lensing, …) MOND doesn’t really hold up.
MOND isn’t even a great way to explain rotation curves. It’s pretty easy to make a pretty close model for the majority of galaxies, but there are a lot of weird outliers where it’s pretty easy to say they just have more or less dark matter than usual, but MOND has a really hard time explaining them without making it so that physics works differently in different galaxies.
I must admit I don’t know that much about MOND being tested. But yeah, from a Lambda CDM point of view it is unsurprising that MOND would not work well for every galaxy.
What was it Anton on YT said once? Something about maybe Dark Matter turns out to be a boring “brute fact” that the only property it has is a weak interaction and nothing else.
Particle physicists love the Weakly-Interacting Massive Particle dark matter model. But from a purely astrophysics point of view there is little reason to believe dark matter to have any interaction beyond gravity.
Off topic, but what is the original source of the meme?
What the other guy said, but also there’s a website for that and you don’t need to go digging on your own or posting again.
Weird advice.
It’s a classic MEMRI TV meme. What MEMRI TV is would require a … “nuanced” explanation that I don’t want to get into here. Look it up on Reddit or start a thread on !nostupidquestions@lemmy.ml
