Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

So if DM is falsified and MOND is unworkable, what should scientists do? Just admit that they have no idea what's going on, but it looks a lot like missing mass?

Oh wait, that's the definition of dark matter.




>Just admit that they have no idea what's going on, but it looks a lot like missing mass?

The way I see things, the much more prevalent attitude is, "we have a good idea of what's going on, we just haven't been able to confirm our confident assessments with objective data". Very few, if any, prominent people in the field admit, "we don't have any idea what's going on, it is all baseless conjecture that might pan out if 75% of the universe is made of some invisible stuff that we haven't been able to detect in 4 decades despite our best efforts". I'd like to see a paradigm shift from, "we have a good understanding of how things work, now we just need to detect the invisible particles that make all of our formulas work" to "we have really have no idea what is happening, but here is some wild speculation that is the best we can come up with".

A lot of the "dark matter" debate reminds me of the Alzheimers/amyloid situation. Groupthink develops among the establishment in the field, based on very little (if any) objective proof, which ends up discouraging and marginalizing those who pursue other theories.


> Oh wait, that's the definition of dark matter.

No, actually calling it missing mass is dark matter. MOND would be another explanation, and there's no reason to conclude it's unworkable.



That's not what you can infer from the data. Some observations fit well with MOND, some with dark matter. See:

From Galactic Bars to the Hubble Tension: Weighing Up the Astrophysical Evidence for Milgromian Gravity, https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/14/7/1331/htm




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: