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!

    • BB84 ( BB84@mander.xyz ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.)

      • flora_explora ( flora_explora@beehaw.org ) 
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • 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.

    • Björn ( bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • BB84 ( BB84@mander.xyz ) OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.