What’s that saying again? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but for all of you MOdified Newtonian Dynamics fans (and Dark Matter haters) out there here’s a bit of good news.
What’s that saying again? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but for all of you MOdified Newtonian Dynamics fans (and Dark Matter haters) out there here’s a bit of good news.
Don’t need to hate dark matter to appreciate both theories have their positives and their hold ups. There’s forces at work that we don’t understand, one camp poses we can add an unknown mass to make things work, the other poses we can add an unknown modifier to a force to make things work. Neither theory works perfectly, neither theory has (of yet) an identifiable mechanism. I don’t know how this is a divisive issue, there’s legit scientific practices happening from both camps.
I subscribe to Sabine Hossenfelder’s take on things, “the distinction between dark matter and modified gravity is a false dichotomy, the answer isn’t either/or, it’s both, it’s just a matter of how do we combine them” 2 years ago in this video. https://youtu.be/4_qJptwikRc
I just watched that video somewhat recently and couldn’t understand that quote. There are a number of MOND models that literally don’t involve dark matter at all – no new particles added, no unexplained masses needed. So in that case, wouldn’t “how we combine them” just be “set dark matter to 0 and use this different set of equations to solve for gravity in certain circumstances”?
The MOND models are less accurate than cold dark mater models. As long as MOND fails to explain current phenomina, cold dark matter wins. Period.
I am a fan of the idea that the standard model is incomplete/wrong, but you cannot in good conscience accept a model that fits the data worse all because the current best model has problems.
A proper answer explains why the current model works but is inaccurate. MOND models straight up disagree.