> A really interesting result. On it's own, it doesn't destroy dark matter as a theory
It refutes LCDM though. No DM halos could be responsible for this behaviour this far out. And this isn't the first time LCDM has been refuted by evidence before they tweaked it with yet more parameters/epicycles to make it fit.
It's been clear for awhile now that neither particle dark matter nor MOND are adequate explanations for observations. MOND clearly matches some data better and with fewer parameters (like this), and DM others, like cluster-scale lensing. New thinking is needed, and hopefully this paper will surprise people into taking MOND-like approaches a little more seriously.
Presuming the behavior is real and not an artifact of the model. This is a statistical technique, needing specially selected targets in order to be observed reliably - and also assuming those targets themselves are typical.
There's plenty of observations which can accidentally vanish because of subtle problems with assumptions, so declaring a total refutation is beyond premature.
Like to wit, if MOND is real then you've really got to explain how sometimes it also selectively just bails out on some galaxies apparently[1].
I'm tired of people trotting out "epicycles" to attack theories they don't like: you're gonna be adding a lot of those to get a MOND which can explain all the data as well (which is to say, it's a trite insult and not useful argument).
Iirc, the udg makes sense if the distance to it is off by something like 25% and the orientation of rotation is off by a bit. Those parameters are very hard to measure in UDGs.
> I'm tired of people trotting out "epicycles" to attack theories they don't like
That's disingenuous. LCDM has a long history of failing to successfully predict later observations and adding parameters to fit the data, where MOND has made many successful a priori predictions without any added parameters since the 1980s. This is not just a matter of not liking something, successful predictions vs. post-hoc curve fitting strikes at the very core of what it means to be a good scientific theory. See:
It refutes LCDM though. No DM halos could be responsible for this behaviour this far out. And this isn't the first time LCDM has been refuted by evidence before they tweaked it with yet more parameters/epicycles to make it fit.
It's been clear for awhile now that neither particle dark matter nor MOND are adequate explanations for observations. MOND clearly matches some data better and with fewer parameters (like this), and DM others, like cluster-scale lensing. New thinking is needed, and hopefully this paper will surprise people into taking MOND-like approaches a little more seriously.